British Citizenship

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why individuals born after 1961 to a British mother and a father who is not a British national are entitled to British citizenship but those born before 1961 are not.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before 1983, women were unable to pass on their citizenship in the same way as men. On 7 February 1979, a concession was announced that the children of UK-born mothers aged under 18 could apply to be registered as British citizens. In 2003, we introduced a provision to register the adult children of UK-born mothers who were born after 7 February 1961. Those born before that date could not have benefited under the 1979 concession.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but since the legislation in 2003 the situation has changed. Thousands of people with no connection whatever with the United Kingdom have been granted British nationality but this group continues to be discriminated against, on the basis not only of which of their parents were British, but of age. What is the justification for continuing that situation? Will the Minister undertake to look at it carefully to see what can be done to change it, and at least deal sympathetically with any individuals with a clear British connection who wish to become British nationals?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly understand the point that the noble Lord is making. Of course, it is within the facility of anyone who has a British connection that goes back over—I think—five years to apply for naturalisation. Many of those who will not otherwise have received the benefit of the 2002-03 amendment may well benefit from that. In the end, I go back to my noble friend Lord Filkin, who explained the position thus in 2002:
	"One can only go so far towards righting the wrongs of history before the number of 'what ifs' to be taken into account becomes unmanageable".—[Official Report, 31/10/02; cols. 295-96.]
	They were wise words then, and today.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in that speech the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, called this one of the "wrongs of history" and when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, answered a similar question in 2006 she said that the problem was,
	"sexism and nothing else as far as I am concerned".—[Official Report, 7/2/06; col. 630.]
	Since neither Minister gave any logical or substantive reason for refusing the request, is there some ulterior reason why the Government are denying the right to register as British citizens to older siblings born to British mothers overseas? Can the Minister come clean and tell us what it is?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I deny that there is an ulterior motive, so I have nothing to come clean about.

Baroness Kingsmill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am one such person, born of a British mother and a father who was not a British national? I took the precaution of marrying a Brit and in that way became registered as a British citizen.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, how wise can one be?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister said a moment ago that he did not have an ulterior motive. Nevertheless, there must be some motive; he cannot be completely irrational. Can he tell the House what it is?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fear this is becoming a very forensic Question. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. My noble friend Lord Filkin got it about right; there is no absolute and precise science to this. The noble Lord's Government brought a degree of rationality to it, but at some stage you need to have a cut-off point, and we determined that to be the best possible one in the circumstances.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, why should the cut-off point be 1961 rather than 1948, when the British Nationality Act was introduced? Is the Minister aware that the class involved is closed, because no new people can be added to it? It is a very small one, and I can see no possible problem with allowing them to enter the United Kingdom. Is the Minister further aware that I have tabled an amendment to the UK Borders Bill to raise this issue again?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was aware that that was a likelihood, and I do not doubt that it will fall to me to deal with it as well. Whether I shall deal with it any more convincingly on that occasion than I am doing this afternoon I am not sure.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, could there be a healthy Exchequer consideration in these matters?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall think about that one.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Higgins, the Minister referred to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, saying that one can go only thus far, without giving any reasons why the particular point that they had reached was chosen. Why did the Government select, in the words of the noble Baroness who is now the Leader of the House, a sexist solution?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that they did in that way. The Conservative Government in the early 1980s tried to rationalise the situation and take the sexist element—if you like—out of it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, can the Minister spell out whether there is any difference in the residence criteria, first, for British citizenship, secondly, for a British taxpayer and, thirdly, for membership of this House?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a good one; usually I ask for notice of questions like that. I am going to fall back on the old standby and say that I will write to the noble Lord.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, how many people are excluded by the present provision?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a good question, to which I do not have an answer. I had anticipated the question, but briefing on that point there was none. We think the number cannot be vast, because of the number of those making an application who fall within the criteria, which is an average of about 3,000 a year. As I explained at the outset, those who have been resident here for some time can apply for naturalisation, and I suspect that is how most people resolve any difficulties that arise.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry. We have reached the eighth minute, and we must move on.

Health: Homeopathy

Lord Palmer: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Mar and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	Whether the document Homeopathic Services, which was sent to primary care trusts during May 2007, was issued with the knowledge and approval of the Department of Health; and, if not, what authority the document has.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, our inquiries, which are continuing, indicate that the document was not issued with either the knowledge or the approval of the Department of Health. Decisions on commissioning or funding treatments are a local matter. NHS providers need to consider the safety, clinical- and cost-effectiveness of treatments, the availability of suitably qualified practitioners and individual patient needs.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Could she give the House some reassurance that the Government will make it absolutely clear to all PCTs that this was not an official document and, therefore, ought to be totally disregarded?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I would like to be able to give a simple yes or no answer, but I cannot at the moment. As I said, our inquiries have not yet been concluded. Once they are, we will certainly take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, and I will, of course, keep the noble Lord and the noble Countess informed. I take this opportunity to pass the best wishes of the House to the noble Countess, and hope that she recovers soon.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have seen the letter which accompanied that paper. Is it not clear from the letter, written by some of the most eminent medical authorities in the country, that all they are suggesting is that primary care trusts should look at the evidence on homeopathic remedies? Given that the National Health Service is short of funds and that NICE cannot recommend certain very effective treatments for serious diseases because of the lack of funds, is it not eminently sensible to suggest that the NHS should not spend its money on remedies for which there is no scientific evidence and whose effectiveness has never been proven? As homeopathic remedies are diluted infinitely, they have about as much effect as a glass of water.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the views of the noble Lord are well known. I say with respect that some eminent clinicians are in favour of alternative medicine and others are not. The Government believe that it is for local PCTs to decide. They are best placed to do that, as they know the needs of local people and how they can best be met.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I served for many years as a member of the Homeopathic Hospital management committee. Until that time, I had no idea what homeopathy was—I thought it might be something almost illegal. However, I discovered that there is a place for homeopathy, just as there is a strong place for allopathy, which is the normal medicine that we know. I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said that unofficial documents should not be allowed to be presented to PCTs. It is important that any group of people who think they have a case should be entitled to present it. The important point is to be clear what has an official imprimatur and what does not.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Everyone has a right to see information, whether it is official or not. The important thing is the status of the document. The document carried the NHS logo, and what is at issue is whether it represents NHS policy.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said twice now that decisions on such matters are for individual PCTs, and one can understand that. However, is this not overridden by NICE or can the PCTs ignore its advice?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, NICE has not yet appraised homeopathic medicine. As I said, it is for PCTs to make decisions on the commissioning of complementary and alternative therapies, including homeopathy. Some clinical guidelines produced by NICE have included references to complementary and alternative therapies alongside more conventional treatment. We believe that NICE should look at both conventional and alternative medicine.

Kurds: Regional Autonomy

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will assist the development of regional autonomy for the Kurds of eastern Turkey and western Iran, similar to current arrangements in northern Iraq.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we have no plans to assist the development of regional autonomy for Kurds in eastern Turkey and western Iran. We respect the territorial integrity of Turkey and Iran.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Is it not the case that the Kurdish people represent the largest single ethnic and cultural group and that the great majority do not enjoy self-determination? Is it not time for this country, the United Nations and others to wake up and make it possible for some degree of autonomy to be worked out?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is absolutely proper that the rights of ethnic minorities—or large ethnic minorities—should be respected. However, autonomy and self-determination are, and must be, a matter for sovereign Governments.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Government support Turkey's entry into the European Union. The reforms to make Turkey more democratic and more in tune with European standards surely include respect for majority rights and a degree of regional autonomy for such a large country. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government must in principle be in favour of greater regional autonomy for the Kurdish areas of Turkey within a sovereign, autonomous but more European Turkey.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government want the Kurdish areas of Turkey to flourish. We believe that they are deprived in a way that they should not be. That is why we very much support the EU's giving £45 million pre-accession money to those areas so that they can flourish as much as the rest of Turkey.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this whole area is a cauldron of intrigue, difficulty and danger at the present time. Many areas could explode and add to the violence. Although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is determined to do his best for the Kurdish people as a whole, would it not be best to go step by step? Is not the first step to ensure that the Turkish people, who, after all, are our allies and friends, establish a good relationship with Iraqi Kurdistan and some kind of agreement on its status within Iraq? At the same time, the very violent PKK, the Kurdish workers' party, should be brought to a more peaceful pattern and move away from violence and terrorism on an extreme scale. Are not those two moves necessary to prevent a new crisis over Kirkuk and new deals with the Iranians, whose latest threat is to say that they want to take Basra? These are very dangerous waters. Does the Minister agree that we should proceed very carefully indeed, and step by step?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I entirely agree that these are dangerous waters, which have global implications. We must move very carefully and in a stable way, and we must have discussions with the whole of the region.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, is it correct that a greater number of Kurds in Turkey now live in Istanbul than in eastern Turkey? If so, does that complicate the matter?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I regret that I do not have the figures in front of me. It may well be true that there are more Kurds in Istanbul than in eastern Turkey but, wherever they are, their rights must and should be respected.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, Does the Minister agree that it would perhaps be helpful if the Government advised the regional Government in Iraqi Kurdistan to take a tougher line on PKK terrorists who use their territory? That might do a great deal to advance their cause for full autonomy.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we certainly encourage Turkey to work with the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to address the PKK presence in northern Iraq, and we welcome the ongoing trilateral co-operation between Turkey, Iraq and the US.

EU: Internal Market

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the proposed revision to the European treaties agreed at the Brussels European Council on 22 June to remove a reference to undistorted competition will affect the achievement of a fully functioning internal market.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we succeeded at the European Council in obtaining a legally binding protocol to the reform treaty, which confirms that the internal market includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted. This means that there is no substantive change to the legal position under the existing EC treaty. Removing barriers to competition in the internal market, along with stopping uncompetitive mergers, fighting cartels and using strong state aid rules to tackle illegal subsidies, will all remain a fundamental part of the EU's task.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He has done his best to convince us that, despite the removal of the phrase "undistorted competition", there is no threat to the free market. He does not mention the insertion in the text of the phrase advocating a "social market economy". Would he care to define that phrase?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am not able to define that phrase, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that things remain precisely the same as far as competition goes. That is confirmed by two senior figures. Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition said:
	"The Internal Market and Competition Protocol is a legally binding confirmation that a system of ensuring undistorted competition is an integral part of the Internal Market".
	Secondly, Michael Petite, the director-general of legal services, said:
	"It is also worth recalling that, from a legal point of view, a protocol forms an integral part of the Treaty to which it is annexed and has the same legal value as Treaty provisions".

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the notable achievements of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was to get an absolute commitment to the development of the internal market? That was done in 1992, 15 years ago. It was an absolutely correct objective, the attainment of which has not always been helped by all our European partners, particularly the French. Does he further agree that, if we are to get a fully functional internal market, we should not allow the majority to be held to ransom by the odd member state that wants to be against? This is one area where we should resist the use of national vetoes and encourage the development of qualified majority voting.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as usual, I agree with practically every word my noble friend said. We must remember that the important matter of undistorted competition was under threat. The British Government fought and won a battle on this issue. We therefore do not need to worry about having proper competition within the EU.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite understandable that the noble Baroness has been confused about the results of the Brussels European Council of 22 June, particularly on this issue? She has undoubtedly taken the view she expressed on this Question having read the reports on the Council in what I like to refer to as the foreign-controlled press. Will the Minister confirm that, under the new Government, attention will no longer be paid to what appears in the Sun, the Times and the rest of the Murdoch press on matters such as this?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord is correct. There are substantive issues relating to the EU that need to be discussed in a proper and adult way. We should take no notice of tittle tattle in the totally popular press.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the words to which President Sarkozy objected have never appeared in any Community treaty, that they were not in the original founding treaties, and that the extremely successful competition policy that the European Union has operated for 50 years now was based on other provisions in the treaties which have been applied and will continue to apply? Will he also confirm, as the noble Baroness the then Leader of the House did, that the protocol that has now been negotiated has the same effect as the treaty and therefore makes the situation slightly better than before? Personally, I regret the disappearance of the phrase to which President Sarkozy objected, but then it was in the constitutional treaty, which I am not sure all those speaking on this Question in this House supported.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those two points. I can confirm that he is accurate in both his conclusions. We must recognise that the French President was playing a game of internal politics. It was clear that he did not manage to get his way, and it is encouraging that so many other countries in the EU and the European Commission, the guardians of the treaty, endorsed this Government's view.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the Conservatives' turn.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, thank you very much. I will keep it short. Does the noble Lord really imagine, on advice that he receives about the omission of some crucial words from Articles 85 and 88 of the Rome treaty as implemented by Regulations 17 and 27, which, alas, I was involved in drafting before we acceded to the European Community, that the Commission and the European Court of Justice will pay no attention to a fundamental amendment of the text?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am advised that the words,
	"a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted",
	were removed from the original treaty, but the protocol negotiated by the Government and supported by many other countries and the Commission is legally safe and will not be challenged. That point was made by Mr Michael Petite in the Financial Times:
	"To avoid any risk of uncertainty as to settled law and to make fully clear that competition will continue to be one of the main policies aiming at the good functioning of the internal market, the European Council decided to provide for the protocol referred to".
	I reassure the noble Lord that the European Commission is more than satisfied that this will not be open to legal challenge.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, recognising that to remove a reference to "undistorted competition" will affect the achievement of a fully functioning internal market, can my noble friend advise the House on the extent, if any, to which that will have an impact on employment opportunities within the European Union?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as far as I know, it will not have an impact on employment opportunities because, as I said, the negotiation of the protocol, which will be annexed to the reform treaty, will provide precisely the same results as the original article ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, outside the Sun and the Times, has the Minister read yesterday's Le Soir in Belgium, in which the Prime Minister of Luxembourg stated that the revised treaty involves major transfers of sovereignty but we must not tell the British?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord will be more than surprised to hear that I have not read yesterday's Le Soir. There is a lot of chatter in several EU countries. Belgium wishes to have a referendum; we do not; and all these matters are open for discussion.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that one of the articles of the presidency's conclusions following the summit explicitly states that all the innovations contained in the 2004 agreement will be carried forward to the new treaty? Incidentally, those innovations include the passerelle clause, making it possible to change competencies from national Governments to European level without the sanction of parliamentary ratification. As it was those innovations that, in the Government's view, required a referendum in the first place, how can the Minister possibly justify not having one now?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this has gone some distance from the Question on the Order Paper.
	The Government would not countenance a referendum because this is an amending treaty not a constitutional treaty. There is a long tradition of these matters being subject to parliamentary process rather than a referendum: the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. In the words of my noble friend the right honourable Lord Blair, people who ask for amendment really wish to get out of the EU.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, while it is absolutely right to welcome the development of the European single market, it is about time that the Government organised a campaign to enlighten the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as those of England, that we have been members of the most successful single market in the world, namely the United Kingdom?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I propose to answer that. My noble friend is absolutely right, but we are talking about another enormously successful market that goes beyond the enormously successful market of the United Kingdom. We should take delight and pleasure that this country is part of those two vibrant and important markets.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, coming back to the original Question, the Minister has attached himself to the negotiation of a protocol that he describes as the result of a successful rearguard action by the British Government after certain words were removed. We all know that those certain words were removed at the insistence of the French President. How come that happened without the British Government knowing about it or objecting to it when it happened?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. This was part of the discussion at the European Council. The British Government realised what was happening, did not take a rearguard action and actually intervened. With the help of the Commission and many other European countries, they managed to get the result that this country and many of our fellow European countries wanted: to make absolutely sure that competition in the internal market is not distorted. I quote that phrase to bring us back to the actual Question that I was asked what now seems like two hours ago.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ashton will deliver a Statement later today on reform of the constitution. We have agreed within the usual channels and, I hope, with the agreement of the House to take the Statement at 4 o'clock. It is important to get the timing reasonably precise today, so I hope that, should we be in the middle of a very long group of amendments, we can intervene to make sure that the Statement comes at a sensible time.

Select Committees

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Lord President (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) be appointed a member of the following committees, in the place of Baroness Amos: House, Liaison, Privileges, Procedure and Selection.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rating (Empty Properties) Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Read a third time, and passed.

Offender Management Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Officers of providers of probation services]:

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 23A:
	Clause 9, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall—
	(a) by regulations make provision for national qualifications for all staff employed by a provider of probation services;(b) accredit training providers for a minimum period of ten years to provide these qualifications;(c) by regulations, require providers of probation services to contract only with accredited providers to provide training for all staff;(d) require providers of probation services to employ sufficient staff with degree level qualifications as is necessary to deliver the probation purposes."

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, as this is the first time that the noble and learned Baroness has spoken to the Offender Management Bill as Attorney-General, I hope that she—indeed, all your Lordships—will forgive me if I spend just a second saying how absolutely delighted we are with her promotion to that role. We wish her the greatest luck with it, and know that she will bring her considerable expertise to bear on the Bill.
	Amendment No. 23A, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is exactly the same amendment that we tabled in Committee. We did so purely because we hope that when the Attorney-General speaks to her own amendment, she may be able now to give a little more detail about the proposals for training and qualifications for those in the probation services. How far has the planned new overarching qualification, at which she hinted, if not outlined, previously, been developed? Will it enable people who are qualified in one public service to get so far and then switch to the probation services by adding another qualification? Equally important is the question of the universities that will deliver not only the current qualifications but those that are proposed for the future. In Committee, a number of us commented on the fact that a contract of only four years does not allow universities to attract the highly qualified staff needed to deliver these qualifications, or indeed to develop their skills.
	Will the Attorney-General further assure the House that only fully trained probation officers will write parole reports for, and otherwise supervise, the most complex and difficult of offenders into the future? As I am sure she and other noble Lords will totally understand, given the current terrorist situation, that is even more essential if, as the Secretary of State said in another place, the public are to remain safe and lead normal lives, and if we are to meet the Government's priority of reducing reoffending.
	Finally, proposed new subsection (1) in government Amendment No. 24 says that the Secretary of State "may" publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of an officer of a provider of probation services. Yet proposed new subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State "must", under proposed new subsection (1), publish guidelines on work involving the supervision of offenders. Will the Attorney-General answer that point when she speaks to that amendment? I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I take this opportunity to endorse heartily all that she has said about the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. It is splendid news and we wish her well.
	The amendment highlights an obvious need. It is quite disturbing to think of the future of a probation service. I emphasise the word "service", because I hope we are not slipping into a frame of mind in which probation is just about managing offenders. A probation service is based not only on experience, which is vital, but also on learning and insight. As the noble Baroness has said, some of the people for whom probation officers will be responsible are among the most complex and difficult members of society. To begin any effective work, it is necessary to have the perspective and understanding that leads those doing the work to take into account, right from the beginning, the sociological, the psychological and the economic pressures that have led to someone becoming an offender.
	At other stages of the Bill, others have said that we must not desert the word "punishment". I completely endorse that view. If someone has committed an offence, it is necessary to bring home to that individual, and to society as a whole, that it is an offence, that it is unacceptable and that punishment is therefore an appropriate concept. To leave it at that is, as we have said repeatedly in our deliberations, madness. It does not make economic sense, and it does not make humanitarian sense. It does not make economic sense because if people continue to reoffend, the cost to society in economic terms is still greater than the cost to society in human suffering. In a humanitarian sense, some of those people are the most disturbed, tragic examples of humanity that it is possible to imagine, living trapped, stunted lives. The whole purpose of successful probation work is to enable people to grow out of that, escape from that and become positive members of society.
	To think that that can be done casually or by people of unquestionable good will is very foolish. It requires a learning perspective and, I emphasise, experience, although the amendment does not deal with it. It is not just about training. I am one of those who believes that we gloss over the difference between training and education: training is vital but education is crucial. Those providing the education and training need to be able to resource it properly, to have the proper staff in place to do it and to plan ahead for their effective role in the operation. Hence the importance of referring to the need for them to have a clear and secure run in the work that they have undertaken.
	If we do not take on board what the amendment is about, we would be irresponsible and let down the whole Probation Service in the future. I support the noble Baroness.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows an enormous amount about the subject, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. We all appreciate their hard work in trying to make sure that what happens under the Bill is against a background of high quality. I speak as somebody who was responsible for training in a big voluntary organisation for many years. It is important for us to remember that voluntary and not-for-profit organisations can produce high quality work and that they do it in their own way. They derive their expertise from different sources and cultures in their area of work. It is important that the legislation does not pin them down. I fear that if the approach of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord were adopted, voluntary organisations would be pinned down into doing things in a common way, which would spoil their work. There have been many examples of that through the years in different areas of voluntary work. It almost always happens because of the intervention of the statutory into the voluntary.
	I think that the Government are following the right line here. We shall hear from the noble and learned Baroness—how beautifully that phrase rolls off the tongue, and so appropriately—why she feels that the Government's approach is preferable. However, my own inclination is that the Government are absolutely right here, although that is not to denigrate in any way the aspirations of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because they are absolutely right to say that standards for voluntary organisations, for those who come in, are essential.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, how is it that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, always get up saying that she knows nothing about the subject but then puts her finger exactly on the point? That point might have been one that some of us who thought we knew something were going to make. I am grateful for her point.
	I want to ask two questions relating to the amendments. My noble friend's amendment refers to training being related to the provider of services in the hope that some of those providers might in the future be voluntary organisations—I prefer "voluntary" to "non-governmental organisation", as I know does the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I assume that we are looking for some change and difference in how services are provided, in the hope that we can find new ways of intervening in criminal behaviour. My hope is that, whatever is agreed, the training package is time-proofed. I would like reassurance in relation to the Minister's amendment. One of my great worries is that we shall build a framework so rigid that it cannot meet the changes that we are looking for. I would like the reassurance that, while we are looking for high standards, we are able to use alternatives. After all, there are many exceptional programmes—I cite the circles of trust, where offenders are looked after in communities. That work has been extremely successful, overseen by highly qualified workers but carried out in the community by ordinary people on the ground.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the Minister on her appointment to one of the most interesting but also challenging and delicate positions in government. I wish her well in managing to balance between the independent legal position and the advice to the Government which the job entails.
	We are discussing both amendments in the group, and we need to know more from the Government about their interpretation of Amendment No. 24. We take the point that what one wants from the voluntary sector may be a little different from what one expects from the private sector. One of the problems of the Bill is that we are talking about a mixed economy with a range of providers in which one may expect different backgrounds for different tasks. I note that the letter the Minister sent us on Amendment No. 24 sets out specifically that the Secretary of State will be required to,
	"publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required,
	for probation staff working directly with offenders.
	We need to know what the phrase "direct contact with offenders" means in rather more detail. Is that intended to mean "not very many", or does it refer to all those who will be writing court reports, because they are in effect dealing with offenders?
	As the Minister knows well, there are those outside who fear that the Bill is about cheap privatisation, putting in unqualified people working for for-profit organisations who will quote for work previously done by qualified people. Part of my problem with the Bill has been that the legislation promoted by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Filkin, was rather different from that being promoted by the Government. Indeed, the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on the last day of the Report stage, that the service had failed does not seem to be a good basis for saying, "What we need now is to move towards a group of probation providers with fewer qualifications than is currently the case in the Probation Service". While we are sympathetic to toughening up the qualifications required by moving towards Amendment No. 23, what we want to know the most is how the Government interpret their own amendment. Indeed, it may be appropriate for us to take this back again and come back at Third Reading with the wording slightly amended to a form which we can all accept.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble and learned Baroness. It is a great source of encouragement to many of us that that particular and distinguished office can be held by someone as committed as she is to the rehabilitative and restorative nature of our criminal justice system. With regard to these two somewhat competing amendments, I have to say that on reading the material, I was somewhat agnostic about which approach I preferred. But I should like to make just one point about which I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will be able to enlighten me.
	The problem seems to be that the Probation Service suffers from two alternative messages. On the one hand, we speak of it as thriving on localness and voluntariness, independence, imagination, innovation and so forth. This is the approach we all want to take until things go wrong. When they do so and the headlines roar, it is then very easy to talk of what happened as though it was a failure to adhere to the national standards we all expect. What is really important is that we should clarify the national standards we all expect and to which officers of whatever part of the service will be held to account and we should clarify the areas where genuine innovation and initiative will be encouraged. It would be most unfortunate if innovation and imagination were encouraged, but only to the point where people were sat on heavily if those innovations and experiments did not work out.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in a sense, I support both Amendment No. 23A and Amendment No. 24. Of course, it is a little difficult to speak to Amendment No. 24 because, as it is a government amendment, the noble and learned Baroness has not yet put the case for it. I imagine that the rule still applies that we shall not be allowed to speak after the noble and learned Baroness has spoken, so I must do my best now.
	I come back to the question of the children of offenders. Will the noble and learned Baroness give a clear assurance that the guidelines on qualifications and experience will include a requirement for knowledge and understanding of the problems that arise from imprisonment, its effect on the children and the impact that the effect on the family has on the rehabilitation of the offender?
	The noble and learned Baroness may think that I am being churlish in coming back to this issue because, in Committee, she said:
	"I hope it is clear to the Committee that we are fully committed to ensuring the welfare of the children of offenders".—[Official Report, 12/6/07; col. 1629.]
	I accepted that until I opened the draft consultation on the service level agreement between the National Offender Management Service and Probation Board intervention services, which contains not a single word about the family and children of offenders. I therefore need some further assurance from the noble and learned Baroness. As I shall not be able to speak later, I should put her on notice that, if she cannot help me, I may come back to this at Third Reading.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was fascinated and intrigued by the sharp contrast between the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I have had more than 40 years' experience in a wide range of voluntary organisations and, yes, they can be excellent bodies—full of good will and compassion, and ready to innovate and, sometimes, even to show entrepreneurial drive. Nevertheless, I do not think that, just because voluntary organisations happen to be established, their officials are the right kind of people to deliver reports that may make the difference between whether or not an individual goes to prison. That is why I come down on the side of Amendment No. 23A. It emphasises the important need for qualifications and for organisations to have continuity of provision of training and education so that people are qualified and fit and proper for the work that they have to do.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wish to highlight two concerns. First, the Leitch report on skills, which was debated by your Lordships' House last Thursday, clearly laid out that the shortage of skills in this country has affected our productivity over many years and that, if we are to be successful as a global nation in the future, we need to address this area. This was recognised in the Prime Minister's reorganisation of departments when he put skills with education.
	The danger is that, while competition can have many beneficial effects, when one has different sectors competing against one another and there is not enough money available to fund the job adequately, sectors could compete downwards rather than upwards. For instance, voluntary organisations could train up staff and then those staff could disappear to the statutory sector because they would get more security there. That would not be helpful. Alternatively, the private sector could try to compete with the statutory sector and staff could leave the private sector to join the statutory sector because it provided more security. There would be a disincentive on the contracted-out sector to train staff because it would know that it would lose them to the statutory sector, and so it would pay less attention to the training of staff. There is also the question of releasing staff to spend time training and releasing senior practitioners to spend time training them. If attention is not paid to these matters, there could be unfortunate consequences.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the House has succeeded yet again in causing this Minister to feel acute embarrassment. Although a number of people have simply told me that I should enjoy it, I suspect that my enjoyment will wane if it continues for much longer. I am assured that noble Lords believe that a change of colour in me is less visible, so they wish to see it more openly displayed.
	I am pleased to speak to the amendment. Amendment No. 24, which is tabled in my name, was very much to answer the pleas that were made on the previous occasion when we debated the need for training to be clearly put in the Bill and for there to be a better understanding of the nature and depth of training and education as they impact on the work of the different people who have come into the pool to assist us. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has put her finger on it, as she always does. There is a tension between having the ability to encourage those who wish to do so to reach the highest possible professional standards and qualifications, while at the same time not discouraging the volunteer, or sapping their vitality and energy, when they can be so powerful in the contribution that they make simply by being able to walk with the offender through a very difficult time. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was therefore right to talk about circles of truth, which are an exemplar of the willing, innovative volunteer working in conjunction with the professional. The training that one would wish the professional to have would differ to some significant degree from the training and experience that the volunteer may have.
	I also understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that in having this range one would go for the cheaper option—the one with fewer qualifications. I say to him that the whole thrust of what we are doing is towards not cost-efficiency, but cost-effectiveness. We have to look at the outcomes. How can we band together those who will interdict the criminal behaviour of the individual so as to make them cease to behave in that way and grow better?
	I hear, too, what the right reverend Prelate said about the Probation Service hearing two messages. The two messages are important, however, because we are setting national standards. We are saying that this is the template against which people will be judged. The House should perhaps remember that—I know that this is not a great comfort, but it is certainly of some comfort to me—when we examine things that have gone wrong, we often find that it has been not because people have adhered to the highest possible standards of the profession, but because tragically they have failed to do so, for a plethora of reasons. It is important for us to have appropriate standards and for those standards to be assured and asserted. It is important, if those standards are met, for us then to be confident that those whom we entrusted with that role performed it to the best of their ability and in accordance with what we asked of them.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to my noble friend Lord Judd for indicating that I should not focus on the precision of their amendment, but rather see this as an opportunity to test whether my amendment meets the challenge that it was set. I hope that I have given reassurances on our commitment to training. I explained on the previous occasion that we are working on a new qualification pathway that will cover all practitioners currently working at the levels of probation service officer and probation officer, in both offender management and intervention. I added that, under the new arrangements, we will award contracts to providers in the first place only if they are able to demonstrate that they will have staff who are appropriately trained for the services that they are delivering. I stressed—and I stress again—that contracts would set out with absolute clarity our expectations on this matter.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with his rightful passion about the rights of children and their families, says about the draft document that I circulated. I emphasise what I emphasised previously: the document is in draft so that the House can have a taste of what is under consideration; it is not the perfected document. I agree with the noble Lord that the children and family issues are important and that we shall need to address them very carefully in the final document.
	I hope that noble Lords will take those assurances into account. We have considered carefully all the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others have expressed. That is why, on reflection, we agreed that it would be sensible to provide such a commitment in the Bill. Amendment No. 24 is the result. It has been drafted specifically to meet the concerns that were raised in our earlier discussion and the concerns raised in the other place. Subsection (1) makes it clear that:
	"The Secretary of State may publish guidelines about any qualifications"—
	I emphasise "any"—
	"experience or training required to perform the work of an officer of a provider of probation services".
	Subsection (2) clarifies this by stating:
	"The Secretary of State must"—
	here is the impetus—
	"publish guidelines ... in relation to work involving the supervision of offenders and other work requiring direct contact with offenders".
	We hope that this resolves the issue with which we wrangled in Committee about how we should best define to whom the guidelines should apply.
	We believe that those two subsections acting in conjunction—particularly subsection (2)—will cover work that involves direct supervision of and interaction with offenders. This covers the writing of court reports as well as risk assessments, the running of offender behaviour programmes and other such matters, particularly work with high-risk offenders, an issue about which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was particularly exercised. I hope that the House will appreciate that the importance of doing that is made absolutely clear.
	The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would mean that the qualifications for all staff, from the most junior administrative grade to chief officers, would have to be rigidly codified. I know that that cannot be what she intends. It would require the Secretary of State to accredit training providers for a minimum of 10 years. However forward looking we are, we cannot know what will be appropriate in 10 years' time. The amendment would require providers to employ sufficient staff with "degree level qualifications", which could have the unintended consequence of encouraging providers to employ staff with experience and degrees that are not the most important or the most necessary for the work that they have to do. Sometimes employing someone with a very old degree that has not been used for a very long time can be the cheaper alternative to employing someone who qualifies via the nationally approved route, or, indeed, to employing someone who has a wealth of experience by virtue of which they command a higher wage. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness or my noble friend Lord Judd would want.
	If I may respectfully suggest so, government Amendment No. 24 is, on the other hand, a sensible and measured way in which to achieve what we all want. It will require the Secretary of State to publish guidelines about the qualifications, experience and training demanded of probation staff working directly with offenders. It also makes it clear that those guidelines should apply to all providers undertaking the work, so that we will have a really good parity of treatment for all those who come to work in the sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, would say, it gives us the innovation, the flexibility and the opportunity to grow and change as needs dictate.
	I hope that that has given noble Lords a modicum of reassurance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says that he would prefer Amendment No. 23A, but I hope that I have explained why the amendment that we propose, Amendment No. 24, is the better course. I very much hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says about competing upwards and downwards. He ably described the tension that there can be in that situation, but I think that our Amendment No. 24 enables us to respond appropriately.
	I hope that noble Lords, having heard what I have said, feel that we could dispatch this issue at this stage, on Report. Of course, if noble Lords wish to look further, we could do so, but I think that we have settled on a position that does justice to the aspirations that we voiced when we last met and discussed these matters.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the further explanation that she has given. She is of course quite right. Indeed, I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would also not want to provide for a rigid scenario that would rule out voluntary organisations and voluntary personnel in the way that the Minister has described. The point about guidelines in subsection (2) is reassuring. I hope that I am right in assuming that that will apply beyond the four-year period in which there is a fairly rigid agreement that only the highest-qualified probation officers will have contact with the most difficult and the most needy, befriending them and helping them to lead a different life in future. Judging by the nod that I think I saw—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the training provision will remain applicable after any change that happens concerning other matters that we have debated.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am grateful to have that reassurance, which will help other noble Lords, whom I also thank for their contributions to the debate, whether they agreed with the points that we were making or took the opposite view. The point about children and families made by my noble friend Lord Northbourne is crucial, and the assurance that the Minister has given on that is very helpful. With all that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 24:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
	"National framework for qualifications of officers
	(1) The Secretary of State may publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of an officer of a provider of probation services.
	(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines under subsection (1) in relation to work involving the supervision of offenders and other work requiring direct contact with offenders (including offenders held in custody).
	(3) Guidelines under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
	(4) In exercising his powers under section 3(2) and (5) and 9 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to secure, so far as practicable, that guidelines published under this section have the same effect in relation to every provider of probation services whose officers perform work to which they relate."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 27:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
	"Code of practice on workforce matters
	The Best Value Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts shall apply to all contractual arrangements for the making of the probation provision under section 3 above."

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, heeding as ever what my noble and learned friend said, I merely say that I believe that this House is very lucky to have her and our new Leader, my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, among us. They are two very able people.
	Last autumn the former Home Secretary, John Reid, announced that a set percentage of probation work would have to be contracted out each year. Initially it was set at 10 per cent, but was to increase incrementally over subsequent years to a maximum of £240 million of all work. At the time, that was controversial, in that it was believed to be arbitrary and bore no relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of existing probation work. We were therefore pleased to hear John Reid change that policy. At Third Reading in the House of Commons, he said:
	"I turn now to the question of targets—a matter that has been raised constantly both with me and with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. People are very concerned, but we already have targets determining how much work must be contracted out of the public sector. In other words, they determine the outcome for services that must be put into the non-public sector by the probation board. In future, we shall abolish the existing targets and replace them with an entirely different type of aspiration. In future, the aspirations—the targets—will not be based on the a priori assumption that there is a level of non-public sector work that must be carried out, whether or not it gives best value or is from the best provider. That would be a dogmatic approach that could unjustifiably force work out of the public sector ... Let me make it clear: if a public sector provider is good enough, even outwith time scale or theme, or the assurances about ring-fenced areas that I shall give, it will have as much chance as anyone else to win the work—some would say a better chance, given the history of some providers' involvement and experience. Our aim is simply to ensure that the best provider delivers best value for the taxpayer. That is our purpose".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1019.]
	The proposed new clause would implement the former Home Secretary's concession. Essentially, it would place certain general duties on those authorities in the Local Government Act 1999, and is similar to the clauses in that Act.
	Bearing in mind the time—I know that there is to be a Statement at four o'clock—I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I also add my congratulations to my noble and learned friend and my noble friend on the Front Bench; I am pleased that they have attained those positions of authority and welcome it very much. I am sure that they will serve the House very well.
	The proposed new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the probation trusts or boards act as best value authorities. That will ensure that the best provider of a service wins contracts, and that arbitrary percentage targets are therefore abolished. The amendment was supported by Napo, which was concerned that arbitrary percentages might be imposed on the service to the detriment of best value. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel inclined to accept the amendment.

Lord Judd: My Lords, my two noble friends should not feel that they are on their own. I strongly support their amendment, which particularly applies in the sphere of co-operation with voluntary agencies; I speak as one with years of experience in the voluntary sector. There is some indication that we are beginning to get a contract-oriented type of NGO that is therefore out to cut corners. For all the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness put in answer to Amendment No. 23A—I was impressed by her response—it is important that we ensure that the message is clear that we are looking for quality and the best suited organisation. Of course, however, cost-effectiveness matters, and that can be tackled in negotiations.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I support the amendment. The list of best value seems an enormously helpful document because it sets out, for the first time that I have seen, a large number of those probation purposes that actually require contracting from whichever sector is concerned. I think that as a list, which will be developed over time, it is therefore an enormously helpful document to have in the hands of those who might be thinking of applying for the contracts to provide these services. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the amendment has been proposed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson for tabling the amendment, which highlights the importance of probation staff in relation to the new arrangements provided for in the Bill. I begin with a few words about best value. Last week, my noble friend wrote to noble Lords setting out our approach to best value in more detail, but I emphasise that this is absolutely not about awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. Of course, value for money is important, but the emphasis is on value; we want to focus on outcomes, raising standards and cost-effectiveness, not simply cost-efficiency. We want to give other providers the chance to show what they can do, but only where they can demonstrate that they are better placed to deliver. The best value process will be used to improve the quality of probation services across the board, which I am sure is what all noble Lords seek to achieve.
	I will now address the position of staff. We have frequently paid tribute to probation staff and we have expressed our appreciation of the difficult, dangerous and often thankless work that they carry out on behalf of us all, and I do so again now. Probation staff have delivered the improvements in service delivery of recent years, and probation staff will carry on delivering the even greater improvements that we look for in the future. None of what we have in mind will be possible without them. We are determined to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to protect the position of staff. Many of those safeguards are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which provides for terms and conditions to be protected in the transfer from boards to trusts and in any future transfers to alternative employers thereafter.
	My noble friend has raised a specific point in relation to the best value code of practice on workforce matters in local authority service contracts. I also highlight the code of practice on workforce matters in public sector service contracts, which applies to contracts let by central government. As I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, it is almost identical to the local authority code, except where the latter makes express provision for local government matters. This code, rather than the local authority code, is in fact more relevant to contracts for probation provision.
	However, the purpose of both codes is the same. They both set out an approach to workforce matters in public sector service contracts that involve a transfer of staff from a public sector organisation to a service provider, or in which staff originally transferred from a public sector organisation as a result of outsourcing are TUPE-transferred to a new provider under a retender of a contract. The aim is to protect the terms and conditions of the public sector staff transferring and to prevent the emergence of a "two-tier workforce", dividing transferees and new joiners working beside each other on the same contracts.
	Both local and central government are required to ensure that the code that is relevant to them forms part of the service specification and conditions for all such contracts, except where specific exemptions have been announced. The codes recognise that there is no conflict between good employment practice, value for money and quality of service. On the contrary, quality and good value will not be provided by organisations that do not manage workforce issues well. The Cabinet Office code of practice on workforce matters in public sector service contracts does not have statutory force as such, but compliance with it is considered to be mandatory for all central government departments.
	The National Offender Management Service already incorporates the code in those contracts which it lets directly for services that involve transfers of staff. It will also incorporate the code in the contracts with trusts, to ensure that trusts in turn incorporate its provisions in any relevant contracts that they enter into. There is therefore no need for further statutory provision in this regard and, with that reassurance, I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I thank the Minister for his positive response and his reassurances, because of which I am pleased to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Constitution

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, all Members of this House and all the people of this country have a shared interest in building trust in our democracy. And it is my hope that, by working together for change in a spirit that takes us beyond parties and beyond partisanship, we can agree a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and the British people. "Change with a new settlement is, in my view, essential to our country's future. For we will meet only the new challenges of security, of economic change, of communities under pressure—and forge a stronger shared national purpose—by building a new relationship between citizens and government that ensures that Governments are a better servant of the people. "Let me pay tribute to the contribution to our thinking and the wider constitutional debate already made by parliamentarians on all sides of the House. And because I want this process to be one in which we consult and involve not only all political parties but also all the people of this country, what I propose today is not and should not be seen as the final blueprint for a constitutional settlement, but a route map towards it. "This route map seeks to address two fundamental questions: to hold power more accountable and to uphold and enhance the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. "And while constitutional change will not be the work of just one Bill or one year or one Parliament, I can today make an immediate start by proposing changes that will transfer power from the Prime Minister and the Executive. For centuries they have exercised authority in the name of the monarchy without the people and their elected representatives being consulted. So now I propose that in 12 areas important to our national life, the Prime Minister and Executive should surrender or limit their powers, the exclusive exercise of which by the Government should have no place in a modern democracy. "These are: the power of the Executive to declare war, the power to request the dissolution of Parliament, the power over recall of Parliament, the power of the Executive to ratify international treaties without decision by Parliament, the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny, the power to restrict parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services, power to choose bishops, power in the appointment of judges, power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases, power over the Civil Service itself, and the executive powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports and the granting of pardons. "I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open 21st century British democracy. Let me set out the measures, the details of which are included in a Green Paper published today by my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary. "While constitutional change should never limit our ability to deal with emergencies and should never jeopardise the security of our forces or any necessary operational decisions, the Government will consult on a resolution to guarantee that, on the grave issue of peace and war, it is ultimately this House of Commons that will make the decision. I propose, in addition, to put on to a statutory footing Parliament's right to ratify new international treaties. "We will also consult on proposals that this House of Commons would have to approve a resolution for any dissolution of Parliament requested by the Prime Minister, and that while, at present, Members of Parliament cannot decide whether the House should be recalled, for the first time, a majority of Members—and not just the Prime Minister—should have that right, subject to your authority, Mr Speaker. "The House of Commons should also have a bigger role in the selection of key public officials."I propose, as a first step, pre-appointment hearings for public officials whose role it is to protect the public's rights and interests, and for whom there is not currently independent scrutiny. This includes the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Local Government Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments. For public offices where appointments are acknowledged to be market sensitive, the Chancellor will set out today how pre-commencement hearings will apply to new members of the Monetary Policy Committee, including the Governor of the Bank of England, and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority. I propose that we extend pre-commencement hearings to utility and other regulators; that we review the arrangements for making appointments to NHS boards; and it is right that this House of Commons vote on the appointment of the chair of the new Independent Statistics Board. "Mr Speaker, I can announce that from now on the Government will regularly publish, for parliamentary debate and public scrutiny, our national security strategy setting out for the British people the threats we face and the objectives we pursue. I have said for some time that the long term and continuing security obligation upon us requires us to co-ordinate military, policing, intelligence and diplomatic action, and also to win hearts and minds in this country and around the world. So, following discussions over the last few months, I have decided to establish within government a national security council, charged with bringing together our overseas, defence and security but also our development and community relations effort, and sending out a clear message that at all times we will be vigilant and we will never yield in addressing the terrorist threat. "As the security agencies themselves recognise, greater accountability to Parliament can strengthen still further public support for the work they do. So while ensuring necessary safeguards respecting confidentiality and security, we will consult on whether and how the Intelligence and Security Committee can be appointed by, and report to, Parliament. And we will start now with hearings, where possible, held in public; a strengthened capacity for investigations; reports subject to more parliamentary debate; and greater transparency over appointments to the committee."The Church of England is, and should remain, the established church in England. Establishment does not, however, justify the Prime Minister influencing senior church appointments, including bishops. And I also propose that the Government should consider relinquishing its residual role in the appointment of judges. "The role of the Attorney-General, which combines legal and ministerial functions, needs to change. And while we consult on reform, the Attorney-General has decided, except if the law or national security requires it, not to make key prosecution decisions in individual criminal cases. "To reinforce the neutrality of the Civil Service, the core principles governing it will no longer be set at the discretion of the Executive but will be legislated by Parliament—and so this Government have finally responded to the central recommendation of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on the Civil Service made over 150 years ago in 1854. "The frameworks for granting pardons and for issuing and withdrawing passports should also be set not by Government but by Parliament. And I propose that we reduce the advanced sight that government departments have of the release of statistical information from as much as five days currently to just 24 hours."Mr Speaker, even as we reduce the power of the Executive, we will also increase its accountability. Following my decision to revoke the provisions which previously allowed special advisers to give orders to civil servants, I am today publishing a new ministerial code which provides for a new independent adviser to supervise disclosure and who I can ask to scrutinise ministerial conduct, including conflicts of interest. "I propose that we reinforce the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and the public with a Statement in the summer prior to the Queen's Speech on the provisional forward legislative programme and annual departmental reports debated in Parliament, beginning this summer."But just as the Executive must become more accountable to Parliament, Parliament itself must become more accountable. "Given the vote in this House in March for major reform of the House of Lords as a second and revising Chamber with provision for democratic election, a Statement will be made before the Recess as we press ahead with reform; a Statement on the reform of local government will propose a new concordat between local and central government; we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to publish our review of the experience of the various voting systems introduced since 1998; and the House will have a full opportunity to discuss in detail and vote on the legislation that flows from the European Union amending treaty."Just as we have appointed Ministers for each region of England, I propose that, to increase the accountability of local and regional decision-making, the House consider creating committees to review the economies and public services of each region, and we will propose a regular question time for regional Ministers. "But while we will listen to all proposals to improve our constitution in the light of devolution, we do not accept the proposal for English votes for English laws which would create two classes of MPs—some entitled to vote on all issues, some invited to vote only on some. We will do nothing to put at risk the Union."The right of all the British people to have their voice heard is fundamental to our democracy and to holding public institutions to account. "Britain is rightly proud to be the pioneer of the modern liberties of the individual, and I think it right to make it a general rule that in this area there is independent oversight of authorities and accountability to Parliament. I also encourage this House to agree a new process for ensuring consideration of petitions from members of the public. "Disengagement is too often reflected in low turnout in elections. Britain is unusual in holding elections on weekdays when people are at work and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice will announce a consultation on whether there is a case for voting at weekends. "The Government will also bring forward plans to extend the period of time during which parties can use all-women shortlists for candidate selections and to give more time for all parties in this House to take up this new right if they choose. And while balancing the need for public order with the right to public dissent, I think it right, in consultation with the Metropolitan Police, Parliament, the Mayor of London, Westminster City Council and civil liberties groups, to change the laws that now restrict the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square. "The measures that I have just announced represent an important step forward in changing the way that we are governed. But it is possible to do more to bring government closer to the people. While our system of representative democracy—local as well as national—is at the heart of our constitution, it can be enhanced by devolving more power directly to the people and I propose that we start the debate and consult on empowering citizens and communities in four areas."First, powers of initiative will extend the right of the British people to intervene with their elected local representatives to ensure action through a new community right to call for action and new duties on public bodies to involve local people. "Secondly, there will be new rights for the British people to be consulted through mechanisms such as 'citizens' juries' on major decisions affecting their lives."Thirdly, there will be powers of redress—new rights for the British people to scrutinise and improve the delivery of local services. And, fourthly, there will be powers to ballot on spending decisions in areas such as neighbourhood budgets and youth budgets, with decisions on finance made by local people themselves."At the same time, we must give new life to the very idea of citizenship itself. All of us in this House would acknowledge that there are very specific challenges we must meet on engaging young people and improving citizenship education, and I hope that there will be all-party support for a commission to review this and make recommendations. While the voting age has been 18 since 1969, it is right, as part of this debate, to examine, and hear from young people themselves, whether lowering that age would increase participation in the political process. "Consultation will take place with you, Mr Speaker—and, through the Leader of the House, this House—as to whether the Youth Parliament, and the Youth Parliament alone, should be invited here in this Chamber, once a year and on a non-sitting day."What constitutes citizens' rights, beyond voting, and citizens' responsibilities, such as jury service, should itself be a matter for public deliberation. As we focus on the challenges that we face and what unites us and integrates our country, our starting point should be to discuss together and then, as other countries do, agree and set down the values, founded in liberty, which define our citizenship and help define our country. There is a case that we should go further still than this statement of values to codify either in concordats or in a single document both the duties and rights of citizens and the balance of power between Government, Parliament and the people."In Britain, we have a largely unwritten constitution. To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our constitutional arrangements. So it is right to involve the public in a sustained debate about whether there is a case for the United Kingdom developing a full British Bill of Rights and Duties, or for moving towards a written constitution."Because such fundamental changes should happen only where there is a settled consensus on whether to proceed, I have asked my right honourable friend the Secretary for Justice to lead a dialogue within Parliament and with the people across the United Kingdom by holding a series of hearings, starting in the autumn, in all regions and nations of this country. He will consult the other parties on this process."The changes that we propose today and the national debate that we now begin are founded on the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy. It is my hope that this dialogue of all parties and the British people will lead to a new consensus, a more effective democracy and a stronger sense of shared national purpose. I commend the Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. It was a long Statement, and rightly so: the subject is massive and there have been enormous changes over the course of the past few years. Does she recognise that this House regards these matters with a great deal of importance and will she use her good offices to provide us with time for a debate on the issues and on the Green Paper at some stage—perhaps after the Summer Recess?
	The Government have a new adviser on these matters whom they have found on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has advised on the Statement and perhaps even the noble Baroness discussed it before reaching conclusions.
	There was a great deal in the Statement that was welcome, but to listen to it, you would not think that the man who made it had been the second most powerful man in the country these past 10 years. The main message from the Statement was an attempt to distance the present Prime Minister from his predecessor's cavalier treatment of our constitution. That is why there is such a great need for change and thought as outlined in the Statement.
	Of course we welcome a willingness to reach out to other parties, which I hope will embrace some of the enormous experience of the Cross Benchers sitting here in your Lordships' House. We welcome the ending of the shameful Order in Council giving political appointees power to give orders over civil servants. We welcome ideas to give more power to Back Benchers in the House of Commons. That echoes the Conservative programme for Commons reform. We welcome also many of the controls on operation of the Executive through the prerogative, but there are practical considerations in issues as diverse as the declaration of war and the appointment of bishops which will require careful consideration. Can the noble Baroness say whether the extra powers to be given to Parliament over the ratification of treaties will cover the powers of this Parliament over EU legislation?
	There was much in the Statement about extra roles for the other place. I also welcome that. But as Leader of this House, can the noble Baroness say whether this House will be given any role in hearings before the appointment of senior public officials? This is a two-Chamber Parliament. Will the noble Baroness act to ensure that this House, with its unparalleled experience, plays its part in this and other new initiatives? One has only to think of the authority that the US Senate has in these matters to realise the potential importance of that to this House.
	If the Prime Minister genuinely wants discussions with other parties, will the noble Baroness accept that we will take part in a practical spirit, just as we have in talks on the future of this House being led by the Secretary of State for Justice? The principles that should apply are clear but sadly have been ignored by this Government over the past 10 years. Change to the constitution should be based on consensus. It cannot be imposed by a one-party majority in one House. It cannot be designed to be to the benefit of one party or two; the interests of the country must come first. The consequences of every change must be carefully thought through before change is made. We want no repeat of the disastrous attempted abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. Parliament must emerge stronger from any change, unlike too many changes over the past 10 years that have drained power from Parliament and given it to a range of other bodies, many of which are shamefully not even elected.
	The astonishing thing about the British constitution is that since the middle of the 18thcentury we have, alone among advanced countries of the world, enjoyed over 250 years without civil war, without revolution, without overthrow of governments, except by a vote of the people in this Chamber or in another place. Yet, at the same time, we have accomplished massive social change. Change was made possible by an unwritten constitution, rooted in convention, that gave unprecedented flexibility, and by a doctrine of parliamentary primacy, the rule of law and constitutional government. This was a prize beyond belief. Now we are being asked to have a fresh look at all of this.
	After 10 years of unilateral action the Prime Minister wants a multilateral approach to help sort out the mess. Well so be it, but can the noble Baroness tell us why this so-called new constitutional settlement fails totally to address the scandal of Scottish MPs voting on English laws when English MPs have no say on similar matters in Scotland? The Prime Minister says this will create a two-tier class of Members of Parliament. That two-tier class already exists today. Why does the Statement not consider apportionment of resources between parts of our kingdom? If, as Scotland's First Minister says, Scotland's resources finance England, or if, on the other hand, the Barnett formula works to the disadvantage of England, why should these issues not now be studied? Why is there no proposal to review use of referendums in the United Kingdom? There is talk of removing power from Government, so why will the review not look at who decides whether we have a referendum and what the rules will be? What is the noble Baroness's view on the right balance between the referendal principle and parliamentary democracy? If we cannot have a referendum on the transfer of power from this Parliament to Brussels—something explicitly promised in the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos—is there any case for referendums at all?
	I welcome talk of a review of our damaged voting system, a system once trusted beyond doubt and understood by everyone, now riddled with confusion and tainted by corruption. Will it end the use of three or four different voting methods on the same day? This has demonstrated the weakness of proportional representation and we see no case for importing that system to Parliament.
	We will take part in discussions on a written constitution and other ways of asserting individual rights. But as the Prime Minister says, this would represent a major change in the way things have been done in this country. Much recent constitutional change has been lawyer-driven and lawyer-made and it has not always been well made. Does the noble Baroness see any dangers in subjecting constitutional decisions of this Parliament to judicial oversight?
	Surely what we need most of all is a fundamental reverse in the dragging of power to the centre. Where in the Statement is the real return of authority to local government and local communities? Where is the return of power from the quangos and unelected regional bodies to elected local authorities? Where is the scrapping of targets and controls from the centre, not only in local government but across the public sector as a whole? Will the noble Baroness confirm that there will be a full-blown Civil Service Act? Perhaps she might tell us whether it will be introduced in the next Session. If her answer is yes, we very much welcome it.
	Before we define the new rights, should we not stop to consider what happened to the old ones, such as habeas corpus, privacy, a citizen police force, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the freedom to travel without signing up for an ID card, which once made this country the envy of the world? No one had to write down the freedoms of the British people then; they were inborn.
	What we now need is a massive programme of repair to our constitutional arrangements. We will play our part, and with the conviction and resolution that this House and the noble Baroness would expect. Our conviction is rooted in a deep love of liberty and freedom, and our resolution will be twofold: to give back to every individual, every family and every local community more power and say in the things that affect their lives; and to restore to this House and to this Parliament their central place in the key decisions that shape the future of our society and our country.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for repeating the Statement and for the Green Paper, which was published simultaneously. Some months ago, when we debated the reform of the House of Lords, I said that I detected the thunder of reform coming down the Corridor from the other place. There was some laughter from Members on the Conservative Benches when I said that. I hope that they will at least concede today that my hearing was not at fault.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, the devil is always in the detail when it comes to constitutional reform, and I will not try to cover everything in the very long and detailed Statement. I note, however, that there are symbolic signs of momentum in any cause. I see three such signs here. First, this is a prime ministerial Statement. Constitutional reform cannot be carried through without the whole-hearted commitment from the Prime Minister of the day, so I find it very encouraging that the Statement comes from the Prime Minister himself. Secondly, it is also encouraging that Mr Jack Straw has been left in post. Others speculated that he might have wanted grander prizes. It is very encouraging that he has decided, and the Prime Minister wishes him, to stay the course in carrying through this programme of reform. Thirdly, it is also encouraging that the Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the House to come into the heart of these negotiations.
	I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the need for consensus. That is to be welcomed, but not at the expense of progress. If we had waited for progress, the Member for Old Sarum would probably still be sitting in the House of Commons and we would probably still have 700 hereditary Peers in this place. Constitutional reform, too, needs momentum and commitment, but, again, there are good signs. The Government can draw on the excellent power report that was produced under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and an excellent paper that was published this week by Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit of UCL—my old college—which proposes a nice agenda for government. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, there is the Power to the People report by the Conservative Democracy Taskforce, which is chaired by Mr Ken Clarke. There is also the policy paper of the Liberal Democrat policy working group, chaired by my noble friend Lord Tyler, and I ask the Lord President to get off the shelf and dust down the excellent report on voting reform by my distinguished predecessor Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It would make excellent reading for the Prime Minister. While making this list, I also include the excellent initiatives already taken by our Lord Speaker in her outreach role.
	I have a few questions for the Lord President. I see no mention in the Statement of the Freedom of Information Act. Can she assure me that that Act will not be amended unless there is post-legislative scrutiny by a committee of both Houses which allows both those who wish it strengthened and those who wish it weakened to put their case?
	I am interested in the references to Civil Service reform. Although the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, is not in his place, I am sure, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that he would want me to ask whether that means a Civil Service Act. If so, we on these Benches certainly welcome that redemption of a pledge made by the first Gladstone Government.
	The interesting comments and proposals on security and the royal prerogatives give tremendous new powers to the House of Commons. In taking on those new responsibilities, will there be parallel reform in the House of Commons to make it fit for purpose? On House of Lords reform, will the noble Baroness ensure, as Leader of the House, that reform is not a euphemism for weakening the House? Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his new position does not entirely fill me with confidence. I would trust him with the National Health Service to my dying day; whether I trust him with the constitution remains to be seen. I quote to both of them the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: unless this House retains the right to say no, it becomes a debating chamber and not a legislature. We must retain the right to say no.
	It would be churlish not to recognise the Statement for what it is: an historic Statement, a bold Statement and one that should give people in all parties, and in none, the opportunity to address some of the real challenges and worries about our society. We need democrats to make a democracy work. All of us involved in politics know of the shortcomings of recent years. The devil is in the detail, but the Prime Minister has thundered today and we welcome him for that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome. I agree that it is as if thunder has indeed arrived. I am also grateful for the approach of both noble Lords and their desire to search for consensus as far as possible. I echo those sentiments. It is important that we all engage in the process that my right honourable friend has set out for us today.
	Although I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is indeed offering his advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice, and although today is his birthday, he has not played a role in putting together this Statement. It has come from the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice, with input, as noble Lords would expect, from members of the Cabinet.
	I am grateful that we will have an opportunity to consider these proposals in the future; I have no difficulty with debating these proposals in your Lordships' House. I am sure that, with the Leader of the Opposition and with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, we shall find time to do so, as noble Lords would wish. Part of that debate will be to take forward these proposals. As I said at the beginning of the Statement, it is important to see these in the context of genuine consultation, genuine proposals and by no means the end of the story. I agree too that the devil is in the detail. As the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, said, we need to take forward practical considerations. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister would concur with that. He has set out the objectives and the direction of travel. It is for us to contribute to the process of ensuring that the practicalities are considered properly.
	The Ponsonby rule will apply for European legislation, as noble Lords would expect—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about that. Hearings for public appointments would be very much down to the consideration of the elected Chamber, but I have already said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice that I would want to discuss with him what role the House of Lords and its committees might play, not necessarily in that part of the deliberations but more generally. As Leader of the House, I will report back on those discussions.
	As I indicated, it is important that we have discussions with other parties. I believe that this is a moment to rejoice, to quote a former Prime Minister. It is important that we consider the proposals as being about making our democracy and Parliament stronger and more accountable to the people. That is a fundamental part of what my right honourable friend has indicated.
	We have no intention of doing anything to destroy the union. We will not do that. We can have as many debates as your Lordships wish about English and Scottish MPs, but we believe that the union makes us stronger and that the right level of devolution has occurred with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The debates and the process will continue, but we are not moving one inch from where my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated that we would be.
	I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is now wedded to referendums. I am delighted to hear it. However, there are many ways of consulting the British people and involving organisations, politicians of all sorts, local government, voluntary organisations, local people, young people and Parliament itself. That is what we should do. As for judicial oversight of constitutional issues, those are important considerations, and in looking at what should be codified and written down we should consider the consequences for the role of Parliament and the judiciary.
	I was asked whether the measures would be part of a Civil Service Act. Our proposal is on page 22, in paragraph 43, of the document published today:
	"The Government believes that, as part of the legislation it intends to bring forward in the next Session, it is right to include measures which will enshrine the core principles and values of the Civil Service in law".
	That is how we will seek to do that. The Freedom of Information Act is not mentioned. I agree that, if any changes were to be discussed, they would have to be taken very carefully in considering exactly what ought to happen. Noble Lords will know that, as a former freedom of information Minister, I feel strongly about that.
	My role is to make sure that I lead for the whole House, as I indicated yesterday. In participating in debates with my right honourable friend I will make sure that that is the role I perform.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, yesterday I welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to her new post but I did not then know how short the honeymoon would be. We have here a substantial and major Statement, on which a large amount of work will be needed over a long time.
	I cannot speak for 205 independent Cross-Benchers and, in any event, I have only had a short time to look at this important Statement, but I would like to make one or two comments. Our Benches will certainly be favourable to the idea that power should be more accountable. That is the first point in the Statement. Some of the 12 points listed may be disagreed with, but the principle of making power more accountable will be welcomed, I am sure, as will a bigger parliamentary role in some areas, such as key public appointments, including the Civil Service Commissioner and the Local Government Ombudsman.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we will ask first whether Parliament means both Houses or one. We believe that it should mean both. That question will come up in due course. Also under that heading, I think that my colleagues will welcome the reinforcement of the core principles of the Civil Service not being at the discretion of the Executive but in legislation by Parliament. We will come back to the important point on whether there will be a Civil Service Act.
	Secondly, I am sure that there will be strong support for enhancing the rights and responsibilities of citizens, including at the local level—while it is often felt that they ought to be there, in practice they are not always. That will also be greatly welcomed.
	The third point is that this document rightly refers repeatedly to involving the public in a debate on important issues such as whether there is a case for a British bill of rights and responsibilities and whether we should move towards a written constitution. On this, the theme among my colleagues will certainly be, as the Government state in this document, that we must proceed only with a settled consensus. That is the vital element of such an important issue.
	I am extremely glad to see that the Prime Minister has carried through his reputation for prudence in the sense that there is very little in the Statement about this House. How prudent that is. None the less, we look forward to a Statement before the recess.
	I do not have many questions for the noble Baroness, but I think these comments are needed on such an important document.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his comments and questions. Both are extremely valuable as we consider this important document. I agree with the thrust of his remarks about greater accountability and that there is an issue about the two Houses of Parliament. But the Houses are different, so let us not begin by assuming that we have the same role as the elected place. We will have to consider what our role should be in an appropriate manner. That will form part of the discussions and deliberations from the Ministry of Justice, to be led in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whom I would certainly entrust with anything to do with a new constitution, or indeed any other aspect of government policy he was willing to take on. As I indicated, I will work closely with him. I am also pleased that the noble Lord mentioned the local dimension. There is much that we need to think about regarding engagement with people at the local level.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, we are most grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's historic Statement. I am sure noble Lords will wish to know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, on behalf of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England, has today welcomed the announcement by the Prime Minister regarding changes to the process by which diocesan bishops are appointed. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice consulted the most reverend Primate about his intentions, which we believe are in accord with the declared wishes of the Church of England. Indeed, the church being the decisive voice in the appointment of bishops was called for by the General Synod of the Church of England back in 1974—not quite 150 years ago.
	The Church of England is grateful for the Prime Minister's thoughtfulness and his overt support for the role of Her Majesty the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the establishment by law of the Church of England, which has been quite strongly reiterated in the Green Paper. Further, the church is grateful for the way in which the Prime Minister has confirmed the valued relations between church and state.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the right reverend Prelate and for his work with the Church of England. I am also delighted that we are now catching up with the General Synod of 1974.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I do not want to sound unduly churlish, particularly in the light of the magnificent way in which the noble Baroness has handled her presentation of this brief this afternoon, but does this not proffer a mammoth menu of measures, many of which have a genuinely modish appeal to them but risk being a case of Utopian overindulgence? Is it not likely that no institution in the country will remain unruptured by the consequences of what has been set out? It amounts to material for a dozen or so Queen's Speeches and two or three general elections, put forward by a Prime Minister who may well be said to require a mandate before he starts on such a mammoth task. More seriously, and worst of all, does not this huge agenda risk overloading in general and in detail a Parliament that already struggles to handle competently its workload? I regret having to say it, but is this not an overambitious agenda from an understandably impatient man?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about the way in which I put forward the Statement. However, I have to say that having a "modish appeal" is not something I associate with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; indeed, that is not how he would wish to be seen. He has considered very carefully where he believes we need to strengthen and move forward our democracy and he has put those issues in a Green Paper today, at the beginning of his premiership, for consideration in Parliament and in the country beyond.
	I began the Statement by saying that this is not about one Bill, one year, one Parliament. Indeed, my right honourable friend has laid out the beginnings of a process, which I hope noble Lords will embrace, but not in a way that suggests that all this is about legislation or the things that Parliament has to do; rather it is an entire process of looking at how we can strengthen our democracy through the engagement of our young people, supporting people at a local level, thinking about our institutions more carefully and considering how best we can deliver for the people of this country. I believe that is what we have done.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I seek two assurances from the noble Baroness, the very welcome Leader of the House. First, do the Government accept the unanimous recommendations of the Cunningham committee, which they and this House unanimously accepted, that there should not be legislation to lay down the conventions of this House? Secondly, do they also accept the unanimous view of every government spokesman on the subject since 1999, that the independent Members are a vital element of this House which must be preserved in any reform?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in considering the future of your Lordships' House it will be important to look at the recommendations put forward and to note, as I do, the strength of feeling within them. We will take account of them in our considerations. As regards the independents, noble Lords will know that we have had several votes in your Lordships' House and in the other place, and they will know in which direction my right honourable friend the Prime Minister voted. The issue will form part of my discussions in considering the future of the House. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will work on behalf of the Ministry of Justice in your Lordships' House to consider how best to take the matter forward.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—

Lord Morgan: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the government Benches and then the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Statement will be greeted with enormous enthusiasm by all parties who care about the quality of democracy in this country, particularly because it focuses on the often-ignored concept of citizenship. It defines and hardens the notion of our people as citizens and not simply as subjects.
	First, although it is rightly said that we do not have a written constitution, it is far more written than it was. Is this not a major step further towards a written constitution, which many of us would welcome? Secondly, this Green Paper of 63 pages does not have the space to mention the word "devolution". Is this significant?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the latter question, there is nothing significant in that; we have been very clear about our position on devolution, which I referred to earlier. As to a written constitution, I have made it clear in the Statement that there are issues to consider about what should be written down and what should be codified that will require the kind of consensus we have described. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morgan for raising the very heart of what is being proposed: citizenship.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I begin by expressing great satisfaction that the Prime Minister has shown such openness about the process of modernising our constitution and recognising that consent will ensure that it is well established. In particular, his unrivalled 10 years' experience of Government at the top makes him better equipped than any previous Prime Minister to introduce a comprehensive programme of constitutional reform.
	Is it recognised that transferring power from the Executive to Parliament is entirely welcome because that enhances accountability and so increases the potential effectiveness of government, reflecting better the will and values of the people? If power is to be transferred to Parliament, let it also be transferred to a reformed second Chamber. Otherwise, the risk of overload would be repeated in another form.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who has a long and distinguished history of being concerned about constitutional reform. I agree with his comments about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, his 10 years at the top and his ability to consider what now needs to be done. I agree that this is about increasing the effectiveness of Government. Part of that is considering the roles of your Lordships' House and another place, and ensuring that we consider how they can best serve the people.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I ask the Minister for reassurance on an important point. In the discussion on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I see that various things will be done in the future that will be considered and discussed. However, the Statement says that,
	"we will start now with hearings, where possible, held in public; a strengthened capacity for investigations ... and greater transparency".
	I suggest that that is an extremely dangerous thing to do without further consultation. First, what you say to your friends your enemies also hear. Everything that is said in public is heard by our enemies as well as our friends. Secondly, I assure your Lordships that the difficulty in recruiting agents will increase substantially. I can think of no agent who will wish to be recruited if they know that there is going to be public discussion of intelligence matters and operations. I seek reassurance that that too is for consideration, and is not going to happen at once. I am worried about the words,
	"we will start now with hearings".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness immediately that only those issues that it is appropriate to be able to discuss would be taken forward. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has just said in my ear that we will need to be, and will be, extremely judicious in the way we approach this. The comments of the noble Baroness, with her long experience, are well made and well understood.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, the Statement refers to the House of Commons having a greater role in the selection of public officials,
	"whose role it is to protect the public's rights and interests".
	On the face of it, that would include judges; indeed, it is a good description of what they spend most of their time doing. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm that there is no intention of holding pre-appointment sessions in the House of Commons or anywhere else in the appointment of judges?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, to my knowledge there is absolutely no intention of so doing. We have described a discussion we wish to have to consider our residual role in the appointment of judges, but that is not about transferring it to another place.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend, particularly on the inclusion of the proposal to limit the power of the Executive to ratify international treaties without decision by Parliament. Is she aware that the deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations said to me that the United Kingdom was the only member of the UN not to have parliamentary ratification for international instruments? This will certainly remedy a democratic deficit. Can she confirm that international treaties include all international legal instruments, not just treaties; for example, conventions and protocols to conventions?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain whether it is accurate to say that we are the only country, but the point is well made by my noble friend. I will write to her about exactly what will be included, for she has reasonably raised issues that I am not certain about and I would not want to mislead the House.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, when a Statement is made before the Recess about elections to this House, I beg the Leader of the House, first, to make sure that there is no suggestion that a House with greater democratic legitimacy should have fewer powers, because that would be completely absurd. Surely it should have greater powers to protect the public from precipitated action by a Government with a temporary majority. That is one of the most important functions that the second Chamber can perform and any new constitutional arrangement should certainly include a prohibition on further curtailment of the delaying powers of this House without this House's consent.
	Secondly—and quickly—instead of appointing Ministers for each region and creating committees to review the public services of the regions, is the priority to increase the authority of local government by devolving more power to it? Regions may be much loved by governments but they often do not reflect any community of interest and they do not command the loyalty or affection of citizens in the way that local government does. If the Government are serious about devolution, devolution should be to existing local authorities and not to the regions.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great passion. There is no question within the Statement that I have described of the idea of a concordat between local and central government and we need to think carefully about what that should include, but there is a desire for those involved in regions to be able to express their views, to look at services and so on, and a regional committee is a proposal that may enable us to do that. As for powers, I know the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House; they would be part of the discussions that we need to have.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Lord President referred to my new role as independent advisor to the Secretary of State for Justice on some aspects of constitutional reform. I am grateful for the intervention and this is a birthday present for me today. May I clarify my role? Although I am not a Christian I hope that the right reverend Prelates will forgive me for saying that I regard myself as instructed by the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6 verse 24:
	"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth".
	I am certainly not serving wealth because I have an unpaid post and I do not regard the Prime Minister as God. My role is to be independent and to seek in the best way I can to serve the wider interests of the people of this country. That is how I see my role without betraying my Liberal Democrat colleagues and any of the principles that I hope that I adhere to. I would like to explain that I have not had any part to play in the document and I would like to ask the question: am I right in thinking, because I have not read the document before, that there is no intention on the Government's part to repeal the Human Rights Act or to weaken the European Convention as recommended by the Leader of the Opposition, described by his colleague as constitutionally illiterate and xenophobic?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have always been a long believer that in your Lordships' House we have people of talent whom we should utilise and I am delighted that the noble Lord is available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice in the way that he has described. There is no question at the moment of looking to repeal anything. What we have said within the document is that we want to look further at what else might be done and it would be in that context that we will explore the issue.

Offender Management Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 28:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
	"Probation report
	(1) Within a period of six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing—
	(a) a review of the proposals contained within the report published on 11th December 2003 "Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach";(b) the collated responses to the consultation document "Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-Offending";(c) a review of the responses referred to in paragraph (b); and(d) proposals for reform of the Probation Service.
	(2) The Secretary of State must include in a report under subsection (1) notification of when he will exercise his power under section 40(1A)."

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, following the earlier admonition of the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General, I shall not repeat what I said in a letter to her, but she knows my sentiments.
	Since the Bill was launched in this House there have been several changes of Ministers and ministries. Noble Lords who know the railway line between Edinburgh and Newcastle will know that one of the things you pass on the left-hand side is the Bass Rock. I am very glad that throughout the Bill we have had our own Bass Rock in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, whom I am delighted to see in his place, where he has been throughout. He represents continuity in the process.
	As I said at Second Reading and in Committee, my purpose in tabling this amendment is not to kill the Bill but to seize the opportunity presented by the creation of the Ministry of Justice and the appointment of new Ministers to review the evidence not just in this Bill but in a large number of other Bills—54 in total—and in a huge amount of other legislation that is associated with it.
	Last night we were due to have debated for the fourth time an amendment to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. Shortly before we were due to start I received a request from the Secretary of State for Justice to defer that debate until he had had time to consider the Bill as it stood. In discussion with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats it was very easy to agree to that and to welcome it. Indeed, I took the opportunity to pass to the Secretary of State a suggested date which he might consider, which I would have mentioned on the Floor of the House. I welcomed the request because it seemed evidence of a willingness to engage in constructive debate. We have just listened to the Statement about the Prime Minister's intent to have a national debate on many constitutional issues. My amendment seeks further debate about the management of offenders within the criminal justice system.
	This Bill had at its genesis a paper by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, but that report was based on a false premise that there would be a stable prison population. Indeed, both he and the then Commissioner for Correction said that the National Offender Management Service, as suggested, could not come to pass unless there was a stable prison population—and there has not been one ever since. Therefore, in many ways, NOMS had a flawed beginning. However, that is not to say that we do not agree with the principle of the proper management of offenders throughout the time that they are in the hands of the criminal justice system or with the partnership of the voluntary, private and public sectors in providing their treatment. We have agreed that throughout our discussion. However, the problem with this Bill is that it is not about the management of offenders; it is about the management of the management of offenders, and in particular the introduction of a new way of commissioning probation services. Therefore, it is a falsely named Bill. Why does that matter?
	One of the reasons that the Government put forward for not being keen on including custody in the corporate manslaughter Bill was that they were sailing into uncharted waters and that they needed to test the temperature before they went further. We are in uncharted waters in the Offender Management Bill. The only country in the world that has gone down the route that has been proposed is New Zealand and that resulted in a gross increase in prison numbers, which worried their Government so much that it has been dropped.
	Since this Bill was launched—I forget which number it is; the number of Bills now reaches 54, which is more than there had been in the previous 100 years at the Home Office—No.10 Downing Street issued a paper called Building on Progress: Security, crime and justice. It is the fourth policy review on this matter and has six chapters, including one of reform of the criminal justice workplace. In addition, it announced a term of reference for another review by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He has done Wembley, he has done a legal review and he is now reviewing prisons. One of the things that he has been asked to do is to assess the management and efficiency of public sector prisons. Surely that has a key part to play in offender management, which is allegedly the subject of the Bill, yet the Carter review will not be included in the conclusions of the Bill. The management of public sector prisons has a huge impact on the rehabilitation of offenders, which is what we agreed a lot of the Bill is all about.
	If that was not enough, last week, as a leaving present, the former Prime Minister landed on the desks of those who cared to pick it up the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. It is a monster of 129 clauses and 23 schedules, and it included the suggestion that there might be a commissioner for offender management and prisons. That has not come near the statute book. My case is that, frankly, this is the wrong time to take this Bill—when it is taken in isolation—because it does not take into consideration what is included in all the others.
	I am currently a member of the Regulators Select Committee, and we are looking particularly at financial regulators. One of the things that has been brought to our notice is that the worst aspect of the whole process is something called the regulatory impact assessment, which is required to be done on every new piece of regulation, and they are very badly done. Indeed, the National Audit Office reviewed regulatory impact assessments and pointed out that they are badly done and that, because they are badly done, they have an impact on what the regulation is meant to achieve. I have drawn attention to the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill. We have not drawn up a league table of regulatory impact assessments but the one on this Bill would figure pretty near the bottom of the league. It says that the options are to "do nothing" which means that,
	"we would be unable to realise the full benefits of the NOMS reform programme",
	or to implement in full, which,
	"would allow the us to take forward the reform agenda".
	But it does not explain at all the impact on costs, the impact on other services, the impact on the voluntary sector or the impact on all the people who are working to rehabilitate offenders, or whether this process would improve. It is merely about whether the Government's proposal would be taken forward. I do not believe that that is what a regulatory impact assessment is all about.
	I have been delighted to hear during the course of this debate that organisations such as the CBI and some private sector companies are very willing to come forward and be involved in the contracts. I am delighted that organisations such as Turning Point and some of the large voluntary sector organisations and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations also want to take part. Of course they do, but that is not the whole story. There is a whole myriad of other small organisations, which do an enormous amount of work in this field. I have been associated with a number of them. I heard yesterday, for example, of a study 10 years ago into the provision of proper nutrition in a prison. It proved that proper nutrition and diet produced a reduction in offending behaviour in prison of 40 per cent. We spent 10 years trying to be allowed to replicate that—10 very frustrating years dealing with people who say that they support the voluntary sector. Meanwhile, the Dutch came in, took our evidence, went away to Holland and published their reports yesterday showing that there was a 47 per cent reduction—we had underestimated.
	I mention that because, over and again in the sector, the arts organisations and small organisations dealing with particular aspects do not feel included in what is happening. They want to be sucked into the dialogue. Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is not to stop what is happening but to say, in welcoming it and the arrival of a Ministry of Justice that has to focus on all these issues, "You don't have to rush ahead with theBill. You've got a crisis on your hands at the moment of too many prisoners and probation officers who need to be handled now by what you have. Introducing a long, drawn-out change to the commissioning process will not help you solve that problem today. Get on with today and, in the mean time, use the opportunity to look at all the evidence, all the things that have been said on the Bill, all the attention that has been drawn to the items that have been left out of the Bill, all the links to other services such as education and healthcare, and the detailed involvement of the voluntary sector. Then let's have a proper debate within the criminal justice system to see that what emerges as the national system for the management of offenders is robust because it consists of a coalition of the willing, who feel that they're willing because they've been involved".
	My amendment is designed to suggest that the new Secretary of State should accept that and seize the opportunity presented. Then he should conduct that inquiry and engage with the House, knowing that when he does so everyone—certainly everyone whom I have spoken to—is minded to go along with the general proposition, but is dissatisfied by the detail that has been presented. It is in the spirit of seizing an opportunity to get something right in relation to all the other things that are on the table, rather than in isolation from it, that I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is good to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a friend of the Bill, but with friends like that who needs—let me leave the quotation incomplete. I am unpersuaded by the argument. It is yet another example of looking for any and every reason to oppose the broad thrust of the reforms.
	The argument is that, after we have been discussing these issues since 2003, we should find yet one more reason to go slower when we all face a level of repeat criminality in this country that we ought to be ashamed of. To believe that we should wait yet further to address that with considered, important and difficult reforms feels like an indefensible and embarrassing argument to have to make. The further argument that the House should, in a sense, second guess the Government in their executive responsibilities about moving forward with reforms when Parliament has given its proper consideration also seems inappropriate. We say that we support the reforms and respect the importance of developing a much more vigorous system that looks afresh at how all the constituent parts address reoffending. That is right—I hope that we believe that—so let us get on with it.
	We argue at times that we should spare the staff from the changes. As someone who has spent far too much of his life seeking to reform public services, I say that where you believe you have a clear vision of reform you should get on with it. The staff do not welcome you dallying around and putting them through further agony, particularly because some will put blandishments in their ears and say, "This further delaying mechanism might mean that reform will really go away and we can afford doing it".
	Mechanisms such as this one help people who do not want to face the need for change to try to continue to avoid doing so. Therefore, I urge the House not to give succour to those who believe that we do not need change in this agenda when we desperately do, and to those who think that they can put off the evil day of change that they do not want to face by finding yet further reasons for delay. Let us give these measures proper scrutiny, but let us then get on with it and seek to reduce reoffending in our society and better protect the public from criminality, because we are not doing sufficient at present. These changes are needed; we should get on with them.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understood that it was precisely the role of Parliament to second guess the Government and to examine whether the proposals made by the Government have a clear rationale. I have struggled with the Bill to find the underlying, clear rationale behind it, and there have been points when I felt that there were two or three different Bills popping out from underneath it. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will know, I have become increasingly sceptical about the mantra of public service reform, the employment of large numbers of outside consultants and the pressure to change for the sake of change and to push towards the private sector.
	We all agree with the principle of more integrated offender management, and we understand that the purpose is the reduction of reoffending and in parallel a reduction in prison numbers. When I read the Carter report—which has a good beginning and a good end, but I missed the argument in the middle that links the beginning and the end—I understood that one the major problems is that fines are not enforced. Nothing that we have read in any of the papers since then deals with how better to enforce fines, which might make a major contribution to a reduction in prison numbers.
	We talk about community penalties and community punishment, but that takes us into the question of which part of a mixed economy one is moving towards. There still seems to be confusion in the Bill about whether we are moving from public provision to largely private sector provision—for profits and for large companies—or to large non-profits that are commissioned centrally, or at the most regionally, or the voluntary sector, which is often much more local working with the community. I note that in the Government's paper Reducing Crime, Changing Lives, the implication is very much that we should be talking about local community involvement, local community punishment and working with the not-for-profit sector. I hope that is the direction in which we are moving, but I am not entirely clear.
	Today's very welcome Statement from the Government on constitutional reform suggests that we should be doing everything to move back towards local community and local engagement as far as we can. That is what we on these Benches support, and that is why we are so unhappy about the extent to which regional commissioning seems to be taking over from local boards. That is why we were so deeply unhappy when the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested that one would have trusts, which one would set up and abolish every day of the week, if you like. Some noble Lords will recall him saying very proudly that he had abolished 200 primary care trusts in a year and set up 55 more and thinking that that was an excellent example of our process of public sector reform.
	We therefore think that there is still a case for a pause. We have not seen the Government's response to the many responses to their original proposals. I have read the Carter report, the Government's response and all those things, and I still do not see an underlying rationale passing through them. In this process, we have had a succession of different Home Secretaries offering different things. If we are to make a very important change in the management of offending, we need to be entirely sure that it makes sense, that it lasts and that everyone is happy with the lasting settlement. We need to make sure that we do not rush through yet another change that will be succeeded with yet another change in three or four years' time, but only after a large number of outside consultants have said that the last one did not work.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was right in one respect—these are important reforms. They will shape for perhaps a generation to come the future delivery of probation services to those who are in need of them. They are very important services, particularly for the security of this country. It is therefore important that we get them right. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, went on to say that there was a clear vision of reforms. I disagree. In our five days in Committee and one day on Report, we have not seen clarity. We have seen an attempt to shield the truth. These are centralising reforms presented as being responsive to local needs.
	Last week, the mask slipped when we debated an amendment on which I divided the House and was fortunate in persuading it to support me. I argued that the Secretary of State's centralising powers to commission services should instead be devolved to the probation trusts. The Government's argument throughout has been to say to me, "Don't worry, we are closer than you think. In practice, the majority of services will be commissioned locally". Last week, suddenly we heard from speaker after speaker on the Benches opposite, behind the Minister, the argument that if my amendment were passed nothing would change and that the local trusts cannot be trusted to deliver commissioning on the contestability basis to private companies and the voluntary sector.
	Clarity was there none. It is absolutely important, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggests, to give the new Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor the opportunity to look again and find the clarity that the public deserve. I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, it is with some temerity that I stand up and say that I am a somewhat simple soul in that I believe that the management of offenders and the management of the service are one and the same. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and other speakers that unless we get that right there will be real difficulty for the service. However, I have a quite different view of where we are. I could be wrong and no doubt my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham will put me right in his response and the Minister may clarify for me where I think I stand, but I simply do not see us in the uncharted waters that everyone else is trying to show.
	The framework of probation will be the same. I would have liked to see more radical reform, as noble Lords will know, not because I am a great one for change—I have argued significantly against some of the health service and social services changes that have gone on and on and left the services in great disarray—but I argue for this change because I believe that out there the probation services are in the middle of it and, having worked for most of my life in change management with organisations, I know that that is nearly the worst position we could continue to leave the probation services in.
	Not only is the framework of probation pretty much the same, I think that we have a clear rationale which, as I understand it in relation to the services in the voluntary sector in which I work that touch the probation sector, is trying to find new ways of intervening. I have heard lots of discussion during this debate about those interventions perhaps not being as "high-class" as others. The services that I have worked with have been exceptional, with highly trained workers intervening in a way that has set the standard for other probation services. If we had that kind of service we would see greater innovation and greater development. Of course I have the same fears as others about whether large companies will come in and undercut my services. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness yet again to reassure us that what will count will be the quality and not low cost.
	The commissioning element is all that is really different. There are other small changes in the Bill but its central core is this commissioning element. I have said this before, but I am surprised that the Conservative Benches are not pressing this forward and that they do not see that commissioning and contestability are a way forward in changing and improving skills. They widen the scope of the skill set. At the moment the changes are proceeding at a very conservative pace. On the ground, services are being told that they cannot have the three-year contracts, which they thought they could have, because of the uncertainty. If we delay again, that uncertainty will go on, not just for the probation services, but for all the local voluntary services that are trying to deliver different but quality services on the ground. These groups are not huge. The one I know best, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, is not a huge organisation; it is a specialist foundation. The circles, working with the Quakers, are small organisations. They have managed to hold their positions, and they will do even better if in future they are more able to get their contracts.
	In my view, the one thing probation does not need is yet another period of uncertainty; but it needs clear knowledge about how to move forward. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham will say that clarity is the one thing that is lacking. But I think that on the ground there is room to move forward. What we do not want is rigidity. We have got to get this right, but to get it right we have got to get on with it. We should not change for the sake of change but this is marginal change. Let us make sure that we do move forward, that we remove the uncertainty, build better services for the future, and, by improving services that stop offenders reoffending, make our country safer.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I say straightaway that I too have been in a very privileged position. From this Dispatch Box I have expressed the views in relation to this matter of the previous Home Secretary John Reid and before him my right honourable friend Charles Clarke, the former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, and now my right honourable friend Jack Straw as the new Secretary of State responsible for justice and the new Lord Chancellor. The last three have one thing in common: they all agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that we must now get on with this and delay will not inure to anyone's benefit.
	I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about centralising reform. I disagree very much with that suggestion. The construct put forward by her on behalf of her party is, I respectfully suggest, one of no change. However, no change will not give voice to the needs both of the victims and the offenders, who demand that we change in order better to address the needs that they each have.
	The structure we suggest is not one which is unreasoned or so fast as not to take people with us. Of course we have listened very carefully indeed to the debate that has gone on throughout the whole passage of the Bill. I recognise the genuine desire of those who have spoken to ensure that we have the best possible set of provisions. We all want to see a strong, confident and effective Probation Service able to play its full part in reducing reoffending and protecting the public.
	I understand the anxiety that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has so cogently expressed in terms of the different tensions in this situation, but what is less clear to me is how this amendment will assist. I am puzzled about why the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, thinks that the addition of a further stage in the parliamentary process and the accompanying delay and uncertainty is necessary or how that uncertainty and delay would further inure to the benefit of those we all purport to serve. The import of what the noble Lord was saying was, "Postpone this Bill and all its parts. Consider afresh again whether all or any of its contents need to be embarked on at all". Some noble Lords might say that what he is saying is "Rip it up, put it in the bin and start again". That would not do justice to the hard work and dedication of all the sectors who have now engaged with such energy in making this change possible. I respectfully remind the House that it is not for nothing that the CBI, ACEVO and many others have said that they wish to see these provisions on the statute book.
	I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for identifying the smaller organisations involved. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is a specialist organisation, but it is not a large organisation. Circles of Support and Accountability, which is an effective organisation, is not large. Clinks, which, as I mentioned to your Lordships last time, is leading the work on how we can get smaller organisations better supported, is not a large organisation. Those organisations need continuity, and commissioning would enable them to have that.
	Perhaps this amendment is inspired by a sense that the Government have rushed these proposals and that a period of reflection is necessary. But if we look at the history of the Bill, we can see how it has changed, developed and deepened in the understanding of what is necessary. This policy has been evolving and in the public domain since December 2003. I know that some in this House think that it should go as slowly as the public sector reform that is contemplated in relation to civil servants for which we have had to wait for more than a hundred years, but I think that we can go little more quickly. We can hardly be accused of having rushed these changes.
	The amendment would require certain documents to be prepared and laid before the House. There is concern therefore that there will be insufficient opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of these proposals. But I respectfully say that that can hardly be the case either. This is a modest-sized Bill—just 34 clauses and five, mainly technical, schedules when it was first introduced. Yet in your Lordships' House alone we have had six Sittings in Committee. Indeed, at the outset of Committee, our scrutiny was so considered and detailed that we were progressing at the rate of roughly one clause per Sitting.
	I am sure that noble Lords would also agree that my noble friend Lord Bassam and I, with the full support of our colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, have gone out of our way to be very full in our responses to points raised, both on the Floor of the House and in the written material that we have regularly circulated outside. Where appropriate, those responses have extended to agreeing to amend the Bill itself. We have done a lot of good work in that regard with the valid contribution from all Members who have taken part, but I cannot see that further scrutiny is needed or what purpose it would serve.
	Perhaps there has been insufficient opportunity for those outside Parliament to have their say. Your Lordships have had the advantage of hearing from many of those who made a contribution. The preponderance of that comment has been supportive of this Bill. The evidence is that the service is committed to change. As I mentioned in Committee, two-thirds of those boards eligible to apply for trust status in April 2008 expressed interest in being considered. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is right when she says that they want to get on with this. That makes 22 areas in which 13 have been invited to apply to become a trust in the first wave. The applications are due to be returned by the 13th of this month. Any further delay and uncertainty risks undermining the plans for implementation and will have an adverse effect on the morale and serviceability to prepare for the future. I am sure that the House will agree that that cannot be in anyone's interests.
	I reassure the House that there is no basis for thinking that if there were a postponement significant or material change is likely. The Government's commitment to the provisions in the Bill remains undiminished either by the machinery of government changes on 9 May or the ministerial changes of last week. Once the parliamentary process has run its proper course, there can be no justification for or advantage in further prevarication. The Bill was on the agenda before the last election. We committed ourselves to bringing proposals forward once we were re-elected and that is what we are doing. It is a part of the democratic process which has integrity. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw his amendment and allow us to proceed in the normal way, confident that he has made a material contribution to the way that this Bill will leave this House.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General for the way she responded. She will not be surprised to hear me say that in the very first of my remarks I said that this was no attempt to kill the Bill. Never, throughout all our deliberations, have we had any intention of killing it, stopping it or being against change. One of my frustrations when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons was the number of recommendations for change that I put forward—some 2,800 over the time of which only 70 were picked up.
	The noble and learned Baroness mentioned that this Bill first appeared in December 2003. That is when the problems started. At that stage, the Government clearly listened to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and rushed ahead with change without thinking. Because they rushed ahead and announced things without discussion, we have had this long drawn out period of uncertainty and retrenchment. Is the Probation Service national, regional or whatever? Will the services be united and merged? What is happening to the regional offender managers who have been in position for three years without budgets and so forth? This uncertainty spread because, right at the start, there was no consideration.
	I am not seeking to delay the Bill just to delay it. I am saying that, while this Bill has come within the context of the criminal justice system, other Bills have been launched and other proposals have been made. Other studies have happened that have an impact on it. Therefore, it is incomplete in context in terms of the criminal justice system and the way that offenders are managed. Unless offenders are managed properly, we will not get what we all require—the rehabilitation of offenders and protection of the public. Nobody wants change more than I do. Nobody is more concerned about the lack of morale and the uncertainty that exists in the services today. I was at a conference this morning listening to deeply disturbed members of the voluntary sector who do not know what is happening. Last Friday I was with the Probation Service and others in Newcastle where people were very disturbed about the lack of clear direction.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said that the framework is the same. It is not the same. The headquarters of the National Probation Service has disappeared and the leader of the service is subsumed into a department in the National Offender Management Service. It is not the same. There is not an organisation that can drive change.
	All I am saying is that to achieve the change that we all want, it behoves the Government to see whether, in the light of all the other things that are going on, it would be sensible to ensure that everything is taken into account, rather than rushing off in one direction. I am sure that the noble and learned Baroness will not be surprised that I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 190; Not-Contents, 135.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 19 [Powers of director of a contracted out prison]:

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Clause 19, leave out Clause 19

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, it is unfortunate that this amendment was originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. It would remove a clause which has long needed to be reviewed. When we originally looked at the whole idea of private sector prisons in 1991, it was decided that there should be a public sector representative in those prisons to monitor compliance with the contract.
	When I was chief inspector, I was often conscious that the relationship between the director of the prison—in many cases, someone who had been a governor of a public sector prison—and the controller was difficult because of one particular factor, which was that in the 1991 Act it was agreed that one activity should remain in the hands of the public sector: the adjudication of prisoners. That was because adjudication involved punishment, which was the responsibility of the state. I do not believe that has changed; nor do I believe that any suggestion that the requirement for controllers who are, in effect, contract monitors in private sector prisons has gone. In some of the reports of my successor as chief inspector, she says that she has been concerned about the number of times that private sector companies have been tempted to fudge figures to appear to comply with contracts and not be liable to sanctions. In the treatment of offenders, that simply must not be tolerated.
	What does not appear in the Bill is the suggestion, which I hope the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General will be able to comment on, that there are two public sector monitors in each private sector prison at present. The number will allegedly be cut to one because it is assumed that adjudication takes a day—it does not. Also, if done properly, contract monitoring takes more than one monitor. Therefore, rather than try to play around with words, it is appropriate to remove this clause and leave the status quo: leave the state responsible for punishment and leave contract monitors in place to fulfil their role of supervising what is done on the public's behalf by the private sector. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I have necessarily stayed out of the discussion on this Bill until now, owing to pressure of underwork. Memories of our debates in 1991 were so sharp and poignant when I heard what was being proposed in Clause 19 that I felt I had to come, reluctantly, to your Lordships' House to express my dismay.
	As I recall, the support of wavering Conservative Peers like myself was solicited by the Government of the day—and by their Home Office spokesman the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whom we all hope to see back with us before too long—for the proposal that two pairs of eyes from the public sector would see what was going on and that things that should not be known in public were not being done in secret. The focus of this concern was adjudication—how fair and appropriate their punishments were to the people concerned.
	When you take freedom from a citizen, you assume a terrible responsibility. When you take it from more than 80,000 prisoners, it becomes enormous. When a significant proportion of those are handed over to an organisation other than the state it becomes necessary to retain some hold on what is done. As I understand it, Clause 19, by transferring the right of adjudication to a governor, makes the monitor no longer necessary for the functioning of the prison. The monitor is necessary for its fair functioning, but not necessary for its economic functioning. This reminds me of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said a moment ago about the danger of figure-fudging. Contractors have targets to meet—haven't we all these days?—otherwise they are in breach of their contract. Therefore, it is very important that the statistics, which reveal the performance against the target, are managed suitably for the contractor. In other words, there is a strong conflict of interest between the interest of the state in fairness and the interest of the contractor in profit. That may be an odd sentiment to express from the Conservative Benches, but we are dealing with matters of principle, and I believe that this House consented to this form of prison on the principle that there should be representatives of the public sector in it to act as referees and whistleblowers, and to protect the defenceless against injustice where the private sector was clearly motivated on occasion to commit injustice. For those reasons, I wholly support the amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have some sympathy for the amendment to remove Clause 19. I had the privilege of representing prison officers in Parliament for some years, and I visited many prisons, so I have had experience of the nature of prisons and the prison environment. I also have a deep respect for the dedication of prison officers and prison governors. The background against which the existing legislation was made is very interesting. I draw attention particularly to punishment being the responsibility of the state. In that context, although many things can be parcelled out, privatised or sub-divided, ultimately—I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about his memory of the atmosphere and the intention at the time—the Minister should be obliged to tell us where this is coming from.
	What consultation has there been, particularly with the Prison Officers' Association and the Prison Governors Association? I would like to hear not only that there has been consultation with those two bodies but that they approve of the intention behind the clause. I do not think that they do; in which case, what is being gained? More than once, the Attorney-General has stressed that this is not driven by efficiency savings but is designed to make the system more efficient. How much more efficient would the system be if we were told that prison governors are burdened and that, in the absence of the clause, they would continue to have the responsibility to adjudicate; indeed, that they were screaming blue murder because of the weight on them? Whom have the Attorney-General and her advisers consulted? Someone told me that they had taken the views of the CBI. The Attorney-General can deny that—indeed, I hope that she will be able to do so—but I would be very worried if the views of industry were to reign over those of the people at the sharp end.
	Let us make no mistake; despite the disputes involving prison officers and prison governors about conditions, pay and all the rest of it, they are at the front line, or the last line, of defence in this country in dealing with many, many people. We know that many people in prison should not be there, but a great many others should be and are determined to make the lives of other inmates bad. I was once asked at Wakefield prison to peep through the window in the door to the cell of a man who had murdered two prisoners while in prison. That is the kind of person with whom we are dealing. Prison officers are prisoners just as much as prisoners themselves, because they are locked in the prison estate and have a terrible job.
	On equity, it is eminently right to say that the persistence of the clause is a condemnation of the present situation, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, was built 16 years ago on the foundation of a major step—the introduction of privatisation into the prison estate—about which many of us still have questions. It is, however, now a fact of life, and I hope that the Attorney-General can satisfy the House that the alarm bells are ringing without reason. If she cannot, however, I very much hope that she will say something to allay my concerns about being party to a situation about which I am not very happy.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said and the questions that he has asked. As an occasional but regular visitor to prisons, the prisons with which I have been most impressed, certainly in the past 10 years, have been private and have been of great benefit to the system as a whole. However, the atmosphere in a prison can very easily become difficult for both prisoners and staff, so the principle of a co-operative regime, particularly when sensitive issues such as punishment arise, is a good one. Even in private prisons, the principle of the involvement of state officials in the punishment of those who are in prison is at least to be considered and quite possibly insisted on.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I did not intend to speak to the amendment. Indeed, I may have misunderstood it. If I have, it will become painfully obvious in the next couple of minutes. As I understand it, the clause intends that the director of a private sector prison should be in much the same position as a governor of a public sector prison when it comes to disciplinary issues, and that is what is objected to and what the amendment seeks to remove. If I have got that part of the amendment right, surely a director of a private sector prison would have to work basically under the same instructions and rules as a governor of a public sector prison would in exercising such powers. Presumably the training requirements would therefore be similar to ensure that the individuals concerned were competent to exercise these responsibilities. Presumably, then, this is almost a professional question of being able to exercise these powers appropriately.
	I also understand that private sector prisons are not exactly divorced from inspections. They are still subject to them, and must operate under the terms of a contract and in a particular manner. If they fail to do so, they leave themselves open to challenge. If my understanding of the position is basically right—it may turn out to be wrong—I really do not see what the difficulty is in enabling the director of a private sector prison to have very similar powers to those of a governor of a public sector prison in this regard.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I hope to be able to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just asked and to explain why this is such a very bad idea. I should make it clear that this debate is not about whether private prisons are a good thing, whether they are value for money or whether they should be more publicly accountable. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, about the propriety of suggesting that the power of punishing prisoners should be handed to a non-state agent, and about the possibility that handing this power to the director of a private prison will lead to conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived. Justice must be done and seen to be done. If the procedures are not seen to be fair and legitimate, the state of a prison will suffer because of the unhappiness of the prisoners and the way in which they feel they are treated.
	I remind the House that the punishments available for prison directors to impose after adjudication are substantial. Directors may no longer add days to a prisoner's sentence—that has to be done by a visiting magistrate and applies to the more serious offences. However, prison directors can confine prisoners to their cells for 21 days; exclude them from work so that they get no wages for up to 21 days; stop their earnings or make deductions from their earnings for up to 84 days; remove them to segregation for up to 28 days; and institute forfeiture of any privileges under rule 8 for up to 42 days.
	The significance of that is that prisoners can be demoted on the incentives and earned-privileges scheme and so may have their entitlement to visits from their families reduced. Furthermore, the imposition of those punishments can have wider implications for prisoners. The power to reduce family visits affects Article 8 of the ECHR, on the right to family life, as given effect to by the Human Rights Act. The frequency and level of punishments given in an institution will go on parole reports and will affect whether prisoners receive parole. The Parole Board takes those matters into account when deciding whether it is safe to release prisoners; therefore, there is an effect on the right to liberty.
	Directors of private prisons are in a difficult and very different position from a public prison governor. They have to take account of the requirements of their employers—that is, the company, which is usually far from the day-to-day concerns of the prison—the requirements of the contract and the need to avoid fines and penalties that such prisons attract if they fail to carry out the contract. It also puts the private prison director under strong pressure and would make it very difficult for even the most well trained and longstanding prison director to be seen to operate fairly and without being accused of conflicts of interest. It seems to me that private prison directors would not want to be put in that position, and this House certainly should not allow that to happen.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has encapsulated what I feel about it. I have been approached by the Prison Governors Association, the Prison Reform Trust and the Prison Officers' Association on this, and they all support the amendment. Very often, when the Prison Officers' Association is mentioned one thinks only of state prisons, but it also has members in private prisons. I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I support the amendment.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. An underlying principle, which we should not cross, is at stake. This is not a criticism of private prisons. We are all conscious that, on the whole, the introduction of private prisons has had a beneficial effect on prisons in this country. Next week, I am to visit a prison whose reputation is among the best of the private prisons in this country.
	The principle at stake is the relationship between the state and the private sector: the proper management of public/private partnerships. The state should have the monopoly of force, and punishment is a use of force. Earlier, I spoke about the difference between the American model of privatisation and the Nordic model of a mixed economy of public/private partnerships. In the United States, they are very relaxed about private contractors carrying guns: mercenaries operating on behalf of the state. We are not happy with that. The state should retain the monopoly of force. If we cross that line we enter a very different world.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, there are potential conflicts of interest. The lines of authority and accountability of a private prison governor and his unavoidable concept of role and responsibility are, to some extent, necessarily different from that of a governor of a state prison. That is in the nature of a public/private partnership and, therefore, it is entirely appropriate that proper tension between the public and the private sectors should be built into the system. The amendment would retain that; Clause 19 would cross that line.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the amendment raises a very important principle. I shall be interested to hear how my noble and learned friend replies. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just made a comparison with the United States, which has a more relaxed attitude towards private contractors carrying guns and the rest. That is about security; in the prison system, we are talking about justice. The amendment raises the issue of whether we want a system in which justice is operated by people with a commercial interest in the operation. I make no criticism—I have no ground for making any—of any director of a private prison at the moment, but a crucial principle arises about justice: how it should operate and how it can convincingly be seen to operate, as has already been said. My noble and learned friend should not dismiss the amendment lightly. In view of her new responsibilities, I shall be interested to hear how she deals with the point about justice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the importance of justice, but also important is parity of treatment in relation to how we house and deal with those who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment. I want to clear up a few points as there may have been some misunderstanding.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is concerned that we are removing the role of the controller, as a third pair of eyes, from the process. I can reassure him that we are not doing that. Controllers will no longer conduct adjudications, but will still monitor the conduct of them by private prison staff; for example, they can even attend individual adjudications if they want to. That is not changing. We agree with him on the need for that scrutiny to be maintained.
	The consultation process was raised by my noble friend Lord Graham. I know how seriously he addresses the issue. I can reassure him that we have consulted the Prison Governors Association and there has been further consultation with contractors and existing controllers. Plans have been developed in discussion with the public sector Prison Service to ensure parity with its procedures. My noble friend Lord Rosser was correct in the premise that he made about the way in which we seek to deal with the matter. These are sensitive issues. I assure the House that the Government recognise that sensitivity and the nature of the changes contemplated in the clause.
	We are also aware of the need to ensure the proper and fair treatment of prisoners, as I made plain. With that in mind, we have taken careful measures to ensure that our approach is balanced by appropriate and robust safeguards. The powers proposed to be transferred by the clause are essential tools for governors in public sector prisons, used to maintain order, control and discipline. As part of our clearly expressed desire to ensure parity of performance between the public and private sectors, we feel that this is precisely the right time to extend the powers, so that they apply equally in private prisons. Specifically, the changes proposed will enable directors to be fully responsible for order and control within their establishments. Controllers, who currently undertake the task on behalf of directors, will then be freed up to spend more time monitoring the quality and value of the service provided by the contractor. Consequently, the change will ensure that the disciplinary system in private prisons operates as speedily and effectively as possible, but also that better oversight of the whole range of services is being delivered by the contractor. This will, I hope, bring real benefits to prisons and prisoners generally, and to the public, with better value for money.
	I was much encouraged by what the right reverend Prelate said, because in his capacity he has had the advantage of going into a number of prisons, both public and private. His experience of a number of private-sector prisons reflects that of the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Ramsbotham, and others.
	The powers are already highly regulated by secondary legislation—not least the prison rules and the detailed instructions in the Prison Discipline Manual and Her Majesty's Prison Service standards, which private prisons are, respectively, statutorily and contractually bound to follow, so that they exactly reflect those that apply in public sector prisons. We are simply creating a parity of powers between directors and governors—neither will have any greater freedom than the other as they perform identical tasks. That is why my noble friend Lord Rosser was right.
	We are also going to require contractually that, before directors can adjudicate, they must have passed the equivalent training course as their public sector colleagues. I know that this is a matter of complaint but, as most directors are ex-Her Majesty's Prison Service governors anyway, they are already likely to be very experienced in the task. My noble friend Lady Gibson has complained about the number of private prisons that have—some would say—purloined for the private sector some of the best from Her Majesty's Prison Service. That is always an issue of tension. However, the controller will ensure that the rules that apply to one are adhered to by the other.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is right about a strong safeguard, which already exists, in cases of a disciplinary offence that may result in the award of additional days. The requirement, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is that such cases must be dealt with by an independent adjudicator rather than by the government controller, in both public and private sector prisons. This proposal does nothing to alter that. My noble friend Lord Judd asked me about my new role conjoined with my old role and my thoughts on that. I hope that he will be content that I believe that we are being consistent. This proposal does not in any way alter that. Such a safeguard was not in place in 1991, when controllers were first introduced. That would have been of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that controllers were going to be adjudicating on issues where there might be a positive punishment—but we do not have that difficulty now.
	Some are also concerned that a director's impartiality would be jeopardised by commercial considerations, as we heard today. There is, however, no evidence in how they use their existing powers to support that. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, rightly referred to perceptions, as opposed to the reality. But there is no evidence on which that perception can justifiably be found. Most notably, the incentive schemes, which often reward good behaviour, are much more imaginative than those in the public sector. However, even if a director were minded to adopt a commercial approach, the requirements of the Prison Discipline Manual, the detailed procedures to be followed, the route of appeal, plus scrutiny from the controller, the IMB, the inspectorate and the ombudsman surely offer us all some reassurance that they would be immediately detected.
	The powers of segregation and control are already available to directors in an emergency, when they simply seek retrospective approval by the controller. The clause will simply enable those existing powers to be exercised by the director acting alone, even where there is no emergency. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that directors have misused the existing powers since the first private prison opened in 1992. Indeed, private prisons have been credited with a key role in improving decent treatment and the conditions of prisoners in both the public and private sectors over the past 10 years. Such a view is not my own, I hasten to add, but comes from no less a source than Martin Narey, the former director-general of Her Majesty's Prison Service.
	I also urge the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to reflect on his own decision, when Chief Inspector of Prisons, to tackle the press about their inaccurate portrayal of the privately owned and operated HMP Doncaster. He may recall that at the time he was so impressed on an inspection by the capability of the director and staff that he personally intervened to demand that the press recognise the excellent practice to be found at the prison. It must have had quite an effect on him, because as recently as January, at the Conservative evidence session for the Bill, he described HMP Doncaster as:
	"a frightfully well-run prison ... staff had extremely good relationships with the prisoners and the organisation running it had done all sorts of imaginative things with education...work...and so on, which weren't happening in the public sector. And when I asked the Governor why he was doing this, which conflicted with what I'd seen of prisons in the public sector, he said he's not allowed to do it in the public sector prison".
	I use not my words but those of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to reassure the House that this is not something that we need to be frightened of. I will not pretend that private-sector performance is always excellent. There have been recent problems at Her Majesty's Prison in Rye Hill, for example, which the inspectorate has reported on and were the subject of the "Panorama" TV programme. My point is that similar problems occur in some public sector prison as well. Good or poor practice is not the sole preserve of one sector or the other. If further evidence of the quality of private prisons is needed, I would invite your Lordships to attend to the most recent prison performance ratings, published by the National Offender Management Service, which shows that eight of the 11 private prisons are rated at level 3 or above on the four-band system. This is a ratio that compares well with the public sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has previously described private prisons as models of what prisons should be like.
	That is a lot of reinforcement of what I hope is a safe and satisfactory move forwards. Restrictions may have been prudent when private prisons were first introduced; I believe that they were. However, considering the good operating record of the private sector since then, we believe that they are no longer justified. Finally, some would argue that these tasks are essentially functions of the state. That was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others. The arguments around the propriety of imprisonment being conducted by private companies were debated at length in 1991 and we all know the outcome. To rehearse them again now is perhaps unnecessary.
	In conclusion, we have seen over time a great deal of evidence which reassures us that what we are doing is not a step too far. I hope that the House will feel that the safeguards I have outlined in some detail, which will enable these powers to be effected properly—the contractual mechanisms, the detailed operating procedures, the scrutiny of the controller, the IMB and the ombudsman—suffice to give noble Lords comfort. The proposals are safe and, I suggest, a logical next step in balancing the procedures between public and private sector prisons to the ultimate benefit of both prisoners and the general public. Further, for the avoidance of doubt, the term "prison" in relation to this clause also applies to young offender institutions, although at present no YOIs are being run privately. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel that this is not such an avant garde move as they might initially have feared.

Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Baroness answer three questions with an eye on future Administrations? First, am I right in thinking that, so long as Clause 19 is in the Bill, no future Administration could withdraw controllers from the private sector? Secondly, if that clause is removed from the Bill, would it be possible to remove controllers from the private sector? Thirdly, is the noble and learned Baroness aware of the enormous comfort that it gives me and many others to see that she is still looking after this brief? I congratulate her on her other job.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord. There is nothing in what I have said to indicate an ability to precipitously or improperly remove the controller. We believe that that function is an essential one. We want the controllers to be able to monitor with an even greater degree of precision what is happening on the ground in these prisons so that we can be assured that the quality we wish to see delivered in all our prisons is in fact delivered, whether they be public or private institutions.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I did mention the suggestion that one of the two controllers was going to be removed. Can the noble and learned Baroness confirm or deny whether that is going to happen?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no information to indicate that one or two of the controllers are going to be removed. I have made it plain that as far as I am aware they will not be removed. They are no longer going to do the adjudications, but that is a different issue. They will still be there to monitor what is happening. If I find that anything I have said is inaccurate, I will notify the noble Lord and make the appropriate correction immediately. But I do not believe that I am in error.
	In transferring these duties across to contractors, we accept that we will be required to fund this new work requirement. NOMS is currently considering options as to how to do this, and one of those is to reduce the head count in controllers' teams by the equivalent of one post to fund the expense the contractor will incur. To suggest that this will remove all benefits in transfer, however, would not be accurate. So there is no suggestion at the moment, but I shall certainly be happy to write to noble Lords. I think they would prefer me to do that rather than read out the whole of the note.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. Noble Lords have considered every aspect of this problem in their contributions. It all comes back to the question of justice and punishment, and who is responsible for delivering it. With respect to the noble Baroness, I do remember all that I said about Doncaster, which at the time was being called "Doncatraz", although it certainly was not. I also remember saying things about other prisons, including Altcourse, Blakenhurst and others which were doing extremely well. But with respect, that was not the point. It was not about adjudications, but about the way the prison was being run: the treatment of and conditions for prisoners on which I was required to report. I gave examples of why it was better, and I was intrigued about what was said about doing things which the private sector could do but the public sector could not. Personally, I think that this remains one of the issues which the public sector should keep a rein on.
	We have just passed an amendment which suggests that this Bill needs to be looked at again. I hope that by raising this issue in that context, that this is another of the issues which will be looked at very carefully when the Bill is considered to see whether it needs to be strengthened and improved. I should like to withdraw the amendment at this stage, with the possibility of bringing it back at Third Reading. By then I will have seen the note. I say that because you cannot carry out the oversight we all would like to see if the number of controllers is reduced. With that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 22 [Conveyance of prohibited articles into or out of prison]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Clause 22, page 15, line 1, at end insert "prison rules or by"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we now turn to an amendment originally tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which concerns Clause 22 and the granting of authorisation for bringing prohibited list A items into and out of prisons. We recognise that there are times when both prison staff and those from external agencies may need to take certain otherwise prohibited articles into or out of prisons in order to carry out essential duties. The prohibited items are broken down into three clear bands grouped according to seriousness. While the legislation as currently drafted permits authorisation to be granted by the Secretary of State or by Prison Rules for lists B and C, only the Secretary of State can grant authorisation for list A items. The amendment seeks to allow authorisation to be granted for list A items by Prison Rules. As noble Lords will be aware, list A items are the most serious category and include controlled drugs, explosives and firearms.
	We did not consider when first drafting the clause that there were any routine circumstances in which there might be a need for authorisations for list A articles. However, having carefully considered the noble Baroness's amendment, I am now convinced that there are circumstances, such as in medical emergencies, in which we might wish to grant authorisations under the Prison Rules. As such, I am content with the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee as we think it achieves a useful purpose and will improve the working of the Bill. I also want to put on the record my gratitude to the noble Baroness for tabling such a helpful amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the Minister for accepting the amendment I tabled in Committee. He will not be surprised if I tease him just a little. When I put forward this amendment in Committee, the Minister said that not only would the Government consider it, but that they would also come back with a drafting that fits the Bill. I am just pleased to note that not only have the Government accepted the principle, they have also for once accepted my drafting. I am grateful to the Minister.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
	"Independent monitoring boards
	(1) The boards appointed under section 6 of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) (boards of visitors) are renamed as independent monitoring boards.
	(2) Accordingly, in section 6 of that Act—
	(a) for the sidenote there is substituted "Independent monitoring boards";(b) in subsection (2), for "board of visitors" there is substituted "group of independent monitors";(c) after subsection (2) there is inserted—"(2A) The groups so appointed are to be known as independent monitoring boards."; and(d) in subsection (3), for "boards of visitors" there is substituted "independent monitoring boards" and for "a board of visitors" there is substituted "an independent monitoring board".
	(3) In section 6(2) of that Act the words from "of whom" to the end cease to have effect."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall speak also to the amendments in my name listed in the group. Noble Lords will recall that when we debated independent monitoring boards in Committee in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, my noble friend Lord Bassam pointed out that the amendment required drafting changes but made clear that the Government were willing to consider it. This we have now done and the amendments before us today are the result of that consideration.
	Since 2003, boards of visitors have been known as independent monitoring boards, a title that more accurately reflects their role as monitors and emphasises their independent status. Some 1,800 board members—unpaid volunteers—appointed from the local community visit their designated establishments on a regular basis to monitor the care and treatment of those held in prison. Their commitment to this difficult, vital and highly responsible role is quite inspiring. When I was the Minister responsible for offender management and, therefore, prisons, I had the privilege of meeting a number of board members and I have never failed to be deeply impressed by their commitment and energy.
	The amendments give statutory effect to two important changes recommended by a working group established in 2000 under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Lloyd, to review boards of visitors. These recommendations were, essentially, as follows: first, to change the title "board of visitors" to "independent monitoring board" more accurately to reflect the role and functions of these bodies; and, secondly, to remove the statutory requirement that at least two members of the board needed to be magistrates.
	For the avoidance of any doubt, let me make it clear that the removal of the requirement for at least two members of a board to be magistrates is in no way intended to erode the significant contribution that magistrates make to the work of boards. The Government fully accept that justices of the peace bring valuable experience and knowledge to the role of board members. The clause seeks only to remove a requirement that was introduced when magistrates had an adjudicatory function in prisons. That function was removed some 15 years ago and the requirement is therefore now obsolete. Magistrates will continue to be welcome on boards as members of the local community. All the amendment does is to ensure that the boards are not required to select a magistrate in preference to another applicant who may be better suited to IMB work and who can bring special knowledge and skills of which the board is in short supply.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for proposing the amendment. I hope this version will receive her support and the support of the House.
	I understand that the Magistrates' Association was a little concerned about these issues. The boards have many excellent magistrate members, as I have indicated, and I am delighted that the Magistrates' Association regards continued involvement in this area of work as a worthwhile activity for its members. I know that Sir Peter Lloyd, who is president of the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards, has been in contact with the Magistrates' Association to explain the difficulties with the current requirement and how it does little to help the many magistrates who are well suited to board work and make successful applications for places. The Government share Sir Peter's view that magistrates can bring valuable knowledge and skills to the boards. Applicants from the magistracy will always be welcome, especially those whose background and experience would help to make boards more diverse. I understand that Sir Peter has already invited the Magistrates' Association to liaise with the IMB national council on how this might be achieved. So perhaps I may say, cheekily, that if any Members of your Lordships' House are minded not to apply, I ask you to desist.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in declaring an interest as Sir Peter Lloyd's designated successor, I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her remarks about independent monitoring boards. Although I completely agree with the proposed amendment, it will be important to ensure that over the national big picture a significant number of magistrates make that contribution. I am sure that will continue to be the case.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness—I had the great fortune to be first to congratulate her yesterday when we had the Statement—for the way in which she put the Government's case on this amendment on the record. She will know that when I saw the drafting of the Government's amendment I immediately contacted the Magistrates' Association, as is my custom in these matters, simply to check that it was content and had been consulted. There were concerns that perhaps there had been an unintentional slip between the two sides and that, as a result, there was a misunderstanding that an agreement had been reached that had not been reached with the magistrates. I am delighted that the Government have taken prompt action and that Sir Peter Lloyd has ensured that the correct information has been made available to both parties.
	I heard the noble and learned Baroness say that the magistrates now regard their continued activity as valuable. They always thought it was vital to the work of the independent monitoring boards. Their original concern was simply that their right to have two places was being removed. I appreciate the way in which the noble and learned Baroness has made it clear that Sir Peter Lloyd welcomes wholeheartedly—and, indeed, encourages—applications from magistrates, particularly from those whose background and experience would help to make boards more diverse. It is on the basis of the way in which the noble and learned Baroness has put her case that I am able to support the amendment today.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General—I really just wanted to say that. I am grateful that the amendment was accepted, reformulated so that it was in proper words and will now go onto the statute book.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to endorse the glowing comments that have been made by the magistracy. We would be very upset indeed if magistrates did not understand how vitally important their role can be, and has been, on these boards. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for what she said about the reassurance that this gives. We would all wish to celebrate the contribution of magistrates and the last thing we would want to do is discourage such fantastic volunteers from continuing their volunteering.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
	"Disability equality duty
	Disability equality duty
	(1) The Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2966/2005) are amended as follows.
	(2) In regulation 2(3)(d)(iii) after the words "Part I" insert the words "or Part V".
	(3) After regulation 2(6)(c) insert—
	"(d) in the case of a public authority listed in Part V of Schedule 1, 1st December 2008."
	(4) After Part IV of Schedule 1 insert—
	"PART V
	Her Majesty's Prison Service
	A prison operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service
	Any contracted out prison within the meaning of section 84 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991"."

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, before I speak to the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Low of Dalston, who is in America, I should like to make good a failure from earlier in the day. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on her announced elevation on her party's Front Bench. We are all delighted about that.
	This issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Low in Committee and we were not satisfied with the Government's answer that they would bring back disability legislation by making provision through Prison Service orders. On reflection, we do not think that that is satisfactory. There is a similarity here to what happened with the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill when the noble and learned Baroness described it as a brave move by the Government that Crown immunity was dropped for certain activities. When I inspected Her Majesty's Prison Frankland in Durham I discovered to my horror a disabled man confined to the healthcare centre because he was wheelchair borne. Frankland was a new prison. I had seen the plans for Frankland, which included provision for disabled people to get around, including those in wheelchairs, but they were not included in the final build. When I questioned the Prison Service about this, I was told that because of Crown immunity the service was not required to conform to the disability legislation and had therefore excluded them. The man was denied access to work, education and everything else because of his disability, as he could not get out of the healthcare centre.
	Therefore, in the spirit of lifting Crown immunity in the context of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, it is perhaps right to look at all the other aspects of this sort of legislation, including disability, where Crown immunity has previously been prayed in evidence. It was, for example, prayed in aid as a reason why the conditions of the Children Act should not apply to prisons until that was overturned by judicial review.
	The background to the amendment is explained clearly by what is required by the Disability Rights Commission, which is that there should be a disability equality scheme in every public place. There are already requirements on probation boards, schools, NHS trusts, passenger transport executives and many other public sector bodies to produce such a scheme. The Prison Service has one, but it is not one of its own; it is an adjunct of the Home Office disability equality scheme, and it applies only to staff, not to prisoners. That is not acceptable. The Prison Service must have a scheme of its own, applying to both prisoners and staff. In the context of lifting Crown immunity, the disability regulations must apply. A Prison Service order is not good enough. An explicit duty must be laid on the Prison Service, quite separate from anything connected with its sponsoring department.
	That is the purpose behind the amendment. The current treatment of disabled people in prison is not adequate for a whole range of disabilities, as has been mentioned many times. Merely putting a requirement in a Prison Service order does not add any urgency to the requirement to put the situation right, but I believe a duty would. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me for joining in the debate at this very late stage. The noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Ramsbotham, who did a very good job of bringing forward the amendment, have a very good point here. The prison population has a high number of disabled people, who are mainly unidentified.
	My interest in dyslexia is probably fairly well established in this House. The number of undiagnosed dyslexics in the prison population is unacceptably high; the only question is how high. I have seen work recently that identifies them as being roughly 50 per cent of the prison population. The same study, at Chelmsford prison, which did a good job of identifying people who were avoiding education and thus not taking themselves forward, was also identifying a lot of people with similar types of problems due to head injury. The biggest problem they had was short-term memory loss, which tends to lead to language function loss and so on, which means bad organisation. Where that was identified and dealt with, the knock-on effects were surprising. One of them, I was told by a prison officer I spoke to, was that the number of assaults had decreased dramatically, because the amount of defensiveness among a large part of the prison population had dropped. Consequently, so had the touchiness and the number of flare-ups. I asked the prison governor how many people it took to deal with one assault. He said it took about nine people for half a day. The cost implications of getting a duty that allows you to take action, and which is suited to the environment, have to be massive. Why are we not introducing such a duty here?
	When I have represented disability interests I have not been above saying, "Poor people, we are all nice", and so on. But disability runs across all sections of society. Unfortunately, certain groups in society have a slightly higher propensity to commit crime, according to the statistics. If you can identify them you stand a chance of breaking the offender cycle, before middle age basically knocks it out of them and you are left with an almost unemployable person.
	This type of duty stands a chance of being able to deal with the situation. It is absurd, given the amount of time and effort we have put into getting legislation, that groups with more obvious disabilities, such as being in a wheelchair, should be excluded from the equality duty. We are not saying that they should be allowed out of prison earlier or that they should not be sent there in the first place, but merely that, once they are there, reasonable adjustment should be made for their situation. Surely the Government should embrace that. They have resisted it in the past, but I hope they are starting to think more coherently about the problem.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I served on the board of visitors of a young offender institution, now a monitoring board, for 27 years. During that time I was often given disabled inmates. They had all sorts of disabilities; I remember two severely deaf boys, blind inmates, people who had cerebral palsy, and of course there were those with mental health problems—they are in every single prison in the country. Also, sadly, we had one young man who had asthma. He told the prison officers that he thought he was going to die, and they did not believe him. The young man died. It was tragic; he was a young lad of 17.
	I have visited many different prisons and young offender institutions. Like my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, I once visited HMYOI Onley, but for a different reason: the institution was running a project where the young men were helping young people with mental problems who came in and used their gym. That was very good, because they were doing something to help other people. That, I feel, is rehabilitation.
	At that institution was a young man who was paraplegic. He had committed a serious offence. He was housed in the hospital wing because of space, but the prison officers wanted to integrate him on a wing. He wrote to me and rang me because he was desperate. He was put in a cell but could not turn his wheelchair because the room was too narrow. In the end, he had to go back to the hospital wing, because there is always more space there, but the people there are not integrated into the whole prison. A lot should be done.
	I am a member of the All-Party Group on Prison Health here in Parliament. We look at health problems and visit various prisons. Last year, we went to Leeds prison, which has become a sort of dumping ground for disabled people for the north of England because it has some facilities for them. That prison had a tetraplegic—someone paralysed from the neck down—who also had a problem with his leg, and he had MRSA. There were many other prisoners with different disabilities who were causing the prison a lot of difficulties. They needed a special bed for the tetraplegic inmate, and they had managed to get one. Maybe, now that the NHS is looking after health problems in prisons, the situation will get better, but disability is often right down at the bottom of the list. When I served in the Yorkshire health region, I was always having to remind people about disability needs: people forget. Provision in the Bill is therefore necessary.
	I hope the noble and learned Baroness the Lord Chancellor—I am sorry, the Attorney-General, the appointment on which I congratulated her yesterday—will be able to do something. We were told that a report was being done by a Minister in the other place, but he has probably moved on now. Someone must take that up and carry on. Disability covers a wide variety of people throughout the country. I hope she will take this seriously.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support the amendment, which has the crucial support of the Disability Rights Commission. As we know, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gave the DRC the right to be consulted on additions to the specific disability equality duties, so it is important that it is in favour of the amendment. The Prison Reform Trust and Diabetes UK have reported cases of hypoglycaemia being treated as a disciplinary issue. I do not have my noble friend's experience of prisons, but as a member of the murder and life imprisonment inquiry in 1989 I visited a few prisons. My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said that the existing Prison Service disability equality scheme covers only staff and he said that it should apply also to prisoners. He also put in a plea for disabled visitors. I found that there was nothing there for a disabled visitor. Parkhurst changed and improved its disabled loo because of my visit. One was discovered in Durham jail that no one knew existed. There was another upstairs but there was no lift to get up to it. I hope that that was changed, but I would put in a plea for visitors to be included under the scheme.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment wholeheartedly. We have had briefing from the Disability Rights Commission and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has explained the background. Had my noble friend Lord Low been here, I am sure that he would have added a few more vibrant descriptions of some of the horrors that are experienced by disabled people, but we have been lucky enough—at least I have—to have received a briefing from his assistant, William Moy, who has done an effective job in setting out a range of areas where there are clearly problems and a lack of awareness. This equality scheme must go broader than just staff and apply equally to visitors and families, but surely it must also apply to the training of staff, so they understand and can look for the points at which they may wish to refer to a doctor or call in some other form of specialist help. With all that as a background, I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. We had some poignant cases at the end picked out from Sean Humber's published prison report from the journal of the Prison Reform Trust, all of which make fairly horrifying reading, not to put too fine a point on it. Along with my noble friends who have already spoken, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General will be able to see her way through to doing something.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The punishment of prison is to be deprived of one's liberty and disabled prisoners should not have an additional punishment of being treated unequally and having less favourable treatment. Only if every prison is required to produce a disability equality scheme will we ensure that they start to make progress in doing such things as ensuring that disabled prisoners have equal treatment and opportunity in taking part in education, in employment schemes, library services, behavioural programmes or visits. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will see her way to support the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, may I say how charmed I have been by listening to all the different manifestations of my name? I will value each and every one of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seems to have slipped one past me on this occasion. I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her new role. I feel a little distressed that because of the nature of that role we may no longer have her constant appearances at this Dispatch Box and I hope your Lordships agree that her party has therefore done this House a great disservice.
	I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for raising the issue. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, is not in his place, but it is an important issue and it does honour to this House that so many have spoken in the debate who have great knowledge and passion for it: the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, and my noble friend Lady Wilkins, together with the fine advocate for disability and dyslexia in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Addington. These are important issues.
	We also have an opportunity to debate how we are responding to the issue. I hope that I made it in clear when we last spoke about it that the Government are firmly committed to tackling all aspects of discrimination and inequality across the criminal justice system. I hear loudly the comments that have been made by those who accurately say that disability should not form a secondary punishment in relation to the criminal justice system. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is concerned about how disability issues are handled in the public and contracted-out Prison Service, particularly in relation to prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Low, made that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, makes a good point about visitors, as does my noble friend Lady Wilkins.
	However, the amendment would require that each individual prison establishment, whether managed by Her Majesty's Prison Service or contracted out, has a separate disability equality scheme and that they each publish a report on the same. The Government consider that it would be disproportionate to make each and every individual prison a separate entity under the Disability Discrimination Act. We do not require the same under the Race Relations Act, nor do we require it of police stations, which stand in a similar relationship to the police authorities. I hope that my comments will in no way diminish the importance of this because I hope that I will be able to explain how we are going to respond. That said, I understand the basis of the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken. As my honourable friend Gerry Sutcliffe made clear in his recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Low, on the subject, the Government accept that there are shortcomings in the current Prison Service disability equality scheme and that it does not currently adequately address issues relating to prisoners.
	That is why Her Majesty's Prison Service is currently drafting an expanded disability equality scheme to cover prisoner issues in greater depth. This is despite the fact that Her Majesty's Prison Service is not currently specified in the legislation as a separate entity. The Prison Service order on prisoners with disabilities is also being revised and updated, and will introduce a mandatory requirement for all prisons, both public and private, to produce an individual action plan detailing obstacles which need to be overcome and the necessary actions to be taken at local level.
	All prisons, whether publicly run or contracted out, are required to abide by all applicable Prison Service orders—of which I can assure the House this will be one. In publicly run prisons, compliance with the order is enforced by operational management. The Prison Service standard, which supports the Prison Service order, is auditable and will be revised to include the requirement to produce an establishment action plan. In contracted-out prisons, compliance is enforced through the management of the contract by the National Offender Management Service. Failure to meet the requirements of the order would have contractual implications for the companies managing the private prisons.
	The Government believe that the revision of the Prison Service order and the requirement to produce local action plans is the most appropriate and the most effective way of meeting the concerns which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, on the previous occasion and very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and all those who have spoken.
	I should point out that the amendment is technically deficient as the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005, as amended on 6 April 2007, already has a Part V. However, I do not think that should impede us doing our duty.
	I very much welcome this debate, and the support from all sides of the House for the principle of challenging discrimination on any grounds in the delivery of public services. I do not believe that this amendment will help us to achieve any greater compliance from prisons with the spirit and letter of the Disability Discrimination Act than the existing provisions, but I very much welcome the opportunity to have said what I have said, and put it on the record so that it can be returned to if it is found that the assurance that I have given to the House is not being properly complied with. I know that that will be used to good effect by all those Members of the House who retain an interest in these issues.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, as the noble and learned Baroness said, we have had an extremely valuable debate marked by the contributions of those with detailed personal knowledge of the problems and an understanding not only of what it is to be disabled but to face double jeopardy, as it were, in prison.
	I was not referring to individual prisons; I understand where the noble and learned Baroness is coming from there. I felt that the issue concerned the Prison Service as a whole. However, it would be churlish of me not to accept what the noble and learned Baroness said and the assurance that she gave. Therefore, it behoves us to go away, to read the Official Report and to think about it, with the option of bringing the amendment back rather than pressing it at this stage.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I should point out that the Disability Rights Commission states that, unlike full disability equality schemes—after all, every school has to produce an individual equality scheme—
	"'Action plans' do not guarantee the involvement of disabled people in their drafting, the gathering of data or review which are intrinsic to disability equality schemes".

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, that is precisely the point I was making about looking at the assurance and checking the measure against that which applies in the Probation Board, schools, NHS trusts and others, which have had to form schemes under the legislation, to see whether it matches theirs. It should have the same bearing on the Prison Service.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that I am not supposed to respond further, but I shall take back this matter because it accords with our good practice to involve stakeholders. I wanted to add that because it might help.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, with that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 33:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
	"Offender Management Board
	(1) There shall be a board to be known as the Offender Management Board ("the Board").
	(2) The Board shall be based within the Ministry of Justice.
	(3) The members of the Board shall include—
	(a) the Secretary of State who shall act as chairman,(b) the Director-General of the Prison Service,(c) the Director of the National Probation Service,(d) the chairman of the Youth Justice Board,(e) the Commissioner for Women appointed under section (Commission for Women Offenders), and(f) other persons who the Secretary of State may nominate.
	(4) The Board shall be responsible for—
	(a) disseminating policy to, and(b) establishing good practice with respect to,
	all organisations involved in the operation of the offender management system.
	(5) In carrying out its functions, the Board shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State and act in accordance with any guidance given by him."

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, Amendment No. 33, which we tabled previously, concerns an offender management board. This time I have added a link to with Clause 34. Therefore, I shall speak also to Clause 34. I refer to the very specific addition to the members of an offender management board of the Commissioner for Women, whom I hope will be appointed as a result of the recommendations of the Corston report.
	My reason—and that of my noble friend Lady Howe—for adding a further paragraph to the amendment concerning the Commission for Women Offenders is to seek enlightenment from the noble and learned Baroness. In May, I tabled a debate on the women's commission issue. At her request, I withdrew the debate because she said that she would produce a formal response to that and therefore it made sense to have a debate based on the government response. I accepted that and withdrew the debate. Since then, the noble and learned Baroness has moved to another position. I was told that I should instead contact Vera Baird in the Ministry of Justice, who is now the Minister responsible. I wrote to her. I have not had a reply, which is not surprising as she is no longer in that position either. Therefore, one of my purposes in tabling the amendment is to ask the noble and learned Baroness, before she moves from her position, what exactly will happen and when we can expect the matter to be debated. It is hugely important to have women's issues properly tackled. They must be represented on an offender management board. That is my purpose in retabling the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that although I have changed my role I have not disappeared. This issue is certainly of acute interest both to myself and to the new Solicitor-General, Vera Baird. The issue is under consideration across government and in due course there will be a comprehensive response to my noble friend's report. We shall then be able to take these issues forward.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I had rather hoped to add something. I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I shall not reiterate what my noble friend said, but we were all very much looking forward to hearing something about this. The number of women prisoners has almost doubled in 10 years but they are still a small proportion of the prison population. I was enthused by the Corston report. Given the quality and the experience in your Lordships' House, I should have thought this would have been an area on which we would be consulted, and that the appropriate department might take our views into account when thinking the matter through.
	Unsurprisingly, the report suggests that if women should be in prison at all—I shall say a few words about that in a moment in relation to my visit to Downview—they should be in small, easily accessible units. Those units should, if possible, be situated in cities, although that may be a little unfair to those who live in rural areas. However, they should be situated in easily accessible areas to enable family members such as husbands to keep in contact. As we all know, families are likely to stay together longer if such contact is maintained, and, we hope, long enough for the children to get the full benefit of that.
	The idea went through my head—noble Lords might think it quite mad—that, although a couple of women's prisons have already been sucked into the male circuit, if all of them became male prisons, that would provide places to resolve prison overcrowding and the new set-up could begin almost at once. The rather splendid idea of providing these sorts of prisons could be introduced. That may or may not make sense.
	I visited many women's prisons while I served on the Parole Board, but on my recent visit to Downview I was struck by two things. First, all the women participating in an excellent course to train to be communicators and run a television unit were hard on me, asking why on Earth women had such long sentences compared to men. Only about a third of them, compared to many more men, had previous convictions when sent to prison. When one thinks it through, quite a lot of them were there for carrying drugs, maybe as mules, but then we need to think why and who sent them there. Were they subject to abuse? Were they in some form of slavery? I suspect that that side has not been sufficiently researched for some time, and it reinforced my thoughts about this range of issues.
	At Downview it appeared that a number of good initiatives were going on. One brilliant woman won a prize from Asda—I think I mentioned that to the noble and learned Baroness—and the television unit made a film about it. She was given a great deal of attention by the local Asda. Out of all that came the interesting thought that Asda central office was not taking the view that all Asdas might take in offenders, think of them in this way and get rid of the awful feeling that anybody who has been in prison should not be recruited. It could have done that, but it has not. If the noble and learned Baroness, as I suggested to her, got Asda central and other companies likely to behave in the same way involved, you could extend enormously the number of employers—when a lot has already been done to get them aboard—that would take on the problem.
	We should think about women as part of the scene, as a crucial part of society. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, wanted a report in six months. Well, we have had another amendment passed that is looking six months hence. I would like some assurance from the noble and learned Baroness that the important and rather different role of women is being taken account of and that wider consultation is going on rather than just inward discussion.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sorry, but the Minister has already spoken and we ought to bring the consideration on the amendment to a close.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I apologise; the misunderstanding is my fault. I tried to bring forward the commissioner amendment and to speak to why I was proposing that the commissioner for women should be on the offender management board. I apologise if I caused any confusion because my noble friend has been saying something that needs to be said, and the importance of women must be recognised. If it is not appropriate to speak now to the commissioner issue, I would welcome guidance on whether I should now reply to what the Minister said.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is faced with having to withdraw his amendment or insist that the House consider it.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, obviously I would like to hear what the right reverend Prelate has to say, if that is possible.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the precise reference in the Companion, but it is pretty clear about the rules of debate on Report. I apologise if that is the case, as I feel constrained myself in offering advice to the noble Lord, but that is how the House is supposed to work.
	I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 7.134 on page 122 of the Companion, which states:
	"Only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the Bill speaks after the Minister on Report except for short questions of elucidation".
	That is the position.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I accept that and it is clear that I should have tried to amend the grouping before it came out. I failed to do that because I did not see it until late.
	The issue has been raised, and I understand the noble and learned Baroness as saying that it will come back to the House in the form of a major debate. I hope there will be one, because then we could raise these issues in a much wider context.
	I was concerned to hear the other day how suddenly one of the women's prisons, Cookham Wood, had been changed into a male young offenders' establishment. An enormous number of good things had been going on in Cookham Wood. Many organisations had been funded by voluntary foundations to do work there, and imaginative programmes were being introduced, but all those have gone. One of my reasons for suggesting that we have a commissioner for women right at the heart of any offender management planning is that that sort of issue could be better represented by someone who knows all the issues, knows what is going on and can fight the case to prevent the unnecessary destruction of a vast amount of good work specifically designed around the needs of women and young women to prevent their reoffending. I apologise for the confusion caused. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and begin again at 8.27 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Palestine: Occupied Territories

Lord Dykes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the 40th anniversary of the occupation of the Palestinian Territories in June, they will make representations to the Government of Israel about the return of those territories.
	My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Whips' Office for the opportunity of raising this subject now and for providing time for the debate. I am delighted to see many noble Lords far more distinguished and competent than I am to debate these complex and frustrating issues, particularly when the authorities in Glasgow, London and elsewhere are grappling with the present emergency. For the moment, at least, the near East seems to have gone quietish, but for how long that will last is a matter of conjecture.
	Above all this debate is about the search for justice and fairness for the Palestinians and real security for the state of Israel. After what has happened over the years, the time for toying around with endless American pseudo-initiatives for a settlement is over.
	I launch this debate above all as an enthusiastic friend of Israel of many years' standing. It has become a great and impressive country in the effervescent near East cockpit, a normal country with major internal socio-economic problems as we have here in Europe and Britain, but a country none the less of great achievements. The economy is strong and the country is militarily completely safe other than from marginal and often futile bomber attacks, which have anyway declined markedly in recent months. The Hamas long-term hudna appears to be holding, for the most part.
	Having quite rightly built up Israel to be the unbeatable military power in the region to ensure its relative high security and the safety of its citizens, the United States, after 1967 and especially since the arrival of the most incompetent and mediocre President in post-war history in 2000, decided that, through the excessive use of US vetoes in the Security Council and elsewhere in the UN—indeed more than 30 times since Resolution 242 after the six-day war—Israel should be strangely exempted from the normal obligations of UN members to adhere to international law and to withdraw from the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
	Successive US intermediaries came and went over the years, including the highly distinguished Senator George Mitchell, all with sensible recommendations for peace, all ignored. Was there a secret Bush-Sharon agreement? Many people still think so, but the jury is out on that. On 14 June, I asked the then Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Triesman—whether the Government here would make a further request to the US Government to persuade the Government of Israel to follow international law in response to UN resolutions 242 and 338. He replied:
	"We ... have consistently called for Israel to follow international law with regard to its actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We continue to work closely with the US and the EU on the peace process and agree that the road map is the way forward".—[Official Report, 18/6/07; col. WA 17.]
	I welcome that Answer very much. Some sceptical observers think that the Blair Government here were pretending about all that, but I give them the full benefit of the doubt. Far too many years have been wasted already, and it is a total disgrace that the quartet exercise has never even begun because the Israeli Government will still not open proper negotiations with the Palestinians. I believe that the Minister—I thank her very much for coming, listening and winding up the debate—and the new Prime Minister are sincere in wanting a just solution to the Palestinians' hideous plight, and the even greater enhancement of Israel's security and civic safety that will result from that lasting settlement.
	A bad moment ensued on 21 June at the special summit in Egypt with Israel and Jordan when Prime Minister Olmert still refused to start substantive talks with President Abbas, after all that the latter had done in recent times by way of deep co-operation and conciliation of Israel's perfectly legitimate security demands. What will Mr Blair's role be as some kind of putative peace emissary, not involved in negotiations? We wait to see the clear details of the mandate. Mr Wolfensohn gave up in disgust in spring 2006 and went home, so the jury remains out on that question as well.
	Also, can we really trust the Americans after all the sad incidents that have taken place? The jury must be out on that too. When I was in the West Bank in November 2005 with Gerald Kaufman MP, Hillary Clinton was visiting Israel. She went only there; she did not go to the Palestinian territories at all, and she declared the new wall a very good idea. I am not sure you will get an even-handed approach from the Democrats, unless they miraculously bring back Jimmy Carter.
	Meanwhile, the Palestinian territories seethe with huge rumours of US plots to split Palestine into two docile future parts. It is up to the Americans to show that those rumours are unfounded nonsense. Naomi Klein, the distinguished writer, recently and vividly described the new boom in Israel as the creation of the,
	"fortress state, surrounded by furious enemies ... a 24-hour-a-day showroom",
	with new entrepreneurs inventing equipment to,
	"spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack, and extract confessions from ... prisoners".
	She went on to say that such items had all become important exports for Israeli companies, like other military hardware. Why not, but is that the total economy to be created if no lasting security comes?
	I understand perfectly that, for many Israeli citizens, it makes much more sense to concentrate on seeking the good life—it is easily available if people work hard in Israel—rather than be bothered with what is happening in the Occupied Territories. It is just like how we Brits used to shrug our shoulders at the unrest and the mistreatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland. Of course, that cosy stance is a fine piece of self-delusion for a people led by—I am sad to say—a short-sighted and narrow-minded Government under Prime Minister Olmert. For instance, the despair and anger expressed in the vivid report of �lvaro de Soto, the Middle East UN envoy, at his end of mission on 5 May emphasised that western-led peace efforts had failed completely. He also thought that the boycott of Hamas was extremely short-sighted. Sending Hamas into exile had, he asserted, effectively transformed the Quartet into a sanctions-imposing body, harming a,
	freely elected government ... under occupation as well as setting unattainable ... conditions for ... dialogue.
	Many international observers consider that all the quartet powers are in breach of international law and the Geneva Convention in allowing the Palestinians to be subjected to huge collective punishment in ghettos separated by often brutal Israeli checkpoints, apartheid roads and no-go areas in their own towns, with the Israelis still holding over 9,000 detainees, mostly without due process. For example, the French press on Monday reported that Said al-Atabeh had had 30 years in detention without any trial whatever. The sad situation goes on unless real action is taken by the international community and the immediate parties concerned: Palestine, the future state, and Israel, the present state.
	I ask noble Lords to read the appalling details of Amnesty International's latest report on the misery of the occupied Palestinians and its accompanying letter of 4 June. The fourth paragraph of that letter read:
	Our research has found that a growing number of Palestinians are suffering from malnutrition, anaemia, stunted growth, vitamin deficiency and other health problems as a direct result of measures imposed to restrict movement of people and goods. As the economy fails, poverty and food insecurity are growing. Farmers are prevented from reaching their land and foodstuff is left to rot in containers as checkpoints are closed.
	Most of the assertions in that and other similar reports have been backed up repeatedly not just by the international NGOs of repute, but by the home-grown Israeli and Palestinian ones as well. Once again, I pay tribute to the wonderful work of Israeli groups such as Peace Now, B'Tselem and the brave ladies of the checkpoint watch organisation, trying to stop young and often nervous IDF soldiers misbehaving and harassing the local population. The recent vicious civil war in Gaza and the West Bank has left the majority of thinking, civilised Palestinians in despair.
	The West cannot leave the Palestinians to rot in this mess created by Israeli intransigence, American defiance and EU myopia. The situation remains a total disgrace. The real bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority should have started years ago. At least a miserable overall scenario is mitigated by the amazing courage of individuals, groups and organisations from both Palestine and Israel who still work together to promote coexistence, despite an atmosphere of deterioration. George Soros's criticisms of the activities of AIPAC in the USA with pusillanimous politicians there is relevant, too. I feel sad that I have to say that.
	Why are the Palestinian missions in the capital cities, particularly Washington DC, so feeble and badly organised? I am sad to make that criticism as well.
	Israel is an established and successful state, with wide international support. Palestine is fighting a despairing battle for statehood and recognition. Surely the established state has the moral and legal obligation to take the lead in ending its colonial occupation forthwith and asking the provocative settlers to move back to Israel proper, to a prosperous economy with plenty of jobs available in the future. That is the key to Israel's survival as a mainly Zionist-based state, otherwise the population growth statistics will confound the legitimate aspirations of millions of sensible Israeli citizens. That remains the reality.
	It took years for the West to stand up to the nauseating evil of apartheid in South Africa. There are no direct comparisons to be made between that and what is happening between Palestine and Israel, but Israel needs to accept the overdue demand of the whole world community to do what is urgently needed. Israel has so much and Palestine so little, with only 22 per cent of the combined territory left if they return to the 1967 lines.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords

Lord Dykes: My Lords, now is the time for Israeli generosity, pragmatism, imagination and, above all, courage.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for reminding us of 40 years ago, at least in the Question if not in his speech. Too often, commentators speak as though the whole Palestinian-Israeli problem started in 1967, and it does us all good to remember the real situation then. Israel was under a dire threat from surrounding hostile armies poised for war. Israel expected Egypt and Syria to fight, which they did, Egypt losing Gaza and Sinai and Syria the Golan Heights. However, Israel did not also expect Jordan to attack, which it didunfortunately for itlosing the West Bank and east Jerusalem, with the old city.
	I was in Israel in August 40 years ago and remember, in the weeks after the six-day war, the euphoria and high hopes of peace at last that permeated Israel, and the mad rush of Israelis to see placesmany of them holy to Judaismthat they had not been able to visit since 1948. They fully expected that many of those places would, under any hoped-for settlement, not be in Israeli hands for long.
	I would like to put on record that I visited Gaza then for the first time. It was a hellhole, and it was only a matter of weeks since it had been in Egypt's responsibility. We now know that the hopes for peace were dashed, and after some ups and many downs we are where we are now. There are some signs of hope again. First, on 25 June, Egypt hosted a summit at Sharm el-Sheikh of Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to advance the peace process and to consider the Saudi initiative. The Saudi peace plan was first proposed in 2002, and it is now being reconsidered by all the interested parties. Israel has restated its commitment to withdrawals of West Bank settlements, and it is releasing funds for the Palestinian Authority under Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
	Lastbecause it is all I have time forbut by no means least, Tony Blair is now the Middle East envoy of the quartet. He said on appointment that a solution was possible but required, huge intensity and work. None of us who know him doubt that he is capable of both, as he so amply demonstrated in Northern Ireland and throughout his premiership. Given all his other talents of negotiation and persuasion, we have grounds for hope. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the whole House and all people of good will should wish him well in his formidable task.

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for initiating this timely debate. I chair the Conservative Muslim Forum, and I am involved in interfaith dialogue promoting peace and harmony among different racial and religious groups. I am convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a durable two-state solution.
	That being said, history has proven that Israelis and Palestinians, even when they are ready to negotiate directly, will need a credible third party to guide them through the process. Here, the role and full support of the President of United States will be essential. America remains the only power that is acceptable to both sides. I welcome the appointment of Tony Blair as the Middle East quartet's new envoy. He is likely to obtain support from America and from other countries. He has the skills to engage with Hamas as he did with Sinn Fein.
	The UK must continue to work closely with the quartet and with regional partners to negotiate, mediate, help strengthen Palestinian institutions and to improve security. We must offer President Abbas our full support in putting together a moderate Government of national unity that is critical to taking forward the peace process. We have made it clear that we would be prepared to move forward on the quartet's three principles: renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations. There are encouraging signs. At a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Ehud Olmert promised to release some $560 million in frozen tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, to free some 250 Fatah prisoners from Israeli jails, to ease restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank and to enhance Israeli trade with the Palestinians. Such actions are vital to the Palestinian people and will help to improve the humanitarian and economic situation, which is dire and critical. Greater freedom of movement would produce immediate and significant benefits. A lot of the violence is a result of frustrated Palestinians who are not able to obtain the basic necessities of life.
	The peace process ought to be based and concluded on the basis of a two-state solution, and I believe that there is a glimmer of hope emerging for renewed engagement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I remind the House that when the clock reaches three, that means that three minutes have passed. This is a timed debate, and we are very short on time.

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, just give me two seconds.
	I am impressed by the One Voice movement, which is an organisation that is working towards achieving peace in the Holy Land. One Voice is holding a solidarity event on 25 July on Abingdon Green.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, to address the issue of Palestine in three minutes is absurd, but I will do my best.
	Among all the recent grim news from Palestine, why should we not be sitting back and letting matters take their course? We should not do so because the situation in the Palestinian territories is one of great instability, in a region that is already plagued by instability following the insurgency in Iraq and the fighting in Lebanon last summer. Things could easily spiral out of control again. The split between the West Bank and Gaza, if it continues and deepens, is a threat to the only viable basis for a solution to the Palestine problem; the two-state template to which all Governments and all Arab Governments and Israel are committed. Above all, a negotiated solution to the Palestinian problem is a necessary, if not a sufficient, element of any counter-terrorist strategy worthy of the name. Of course, a Palestinian settlement would not at a stroke bring terrorist attacks to an end; indeed any settlement and those who subscribe to it would no doubt be attacked with the greatest violence by the terrorists and their backers, but a settlement should drain away much of the support for extremism, which feeds on the present mood of helplessness and anger, and it would help to legitimise politically the actions that moderate Governments in Muslim countries take to resist the pull of violence.
	What needs to be done urgently, if inaction is a poor option? First, Israel needs to release all the Palestinian money that it is withholding and loosen the stranglehold that its myriad of roadblocks is exerting on the West Bank. Outside donors need to resume structured efforts to build up the institutions of a future Palestinian state. That needs to be done in ways that do not deepen the split between the West Bank and Gaza and which do not deprive the inhabitants of Gaza of money that is rightfully theirs and of access to humanitarian aid. A policy of punishing the citizens of Gaza for the predicament into which they have fallen would be neither viable nor morally defensible. I would like to hear whether the Government share that view and, if so, how in practical terms they intend to proceed.
	Short-term solutions will not be enough. There needs to be a resumed peace process that addresses not only the route to be taken but what is called the political horizon, which is current diplomat-speak for final status issues. Any such process needs to be inclusive, reaching out to and involving talking to all those parties, whether in government or not, who are involved in the politics of the region. I was really shocked to read in the fascinating report by Alvaro de Soto that he was forbidden by two successive Secretaries-General, no doubt under strong external pressure, even to speak to Hamas leaders. If we learnt anything from our experience in Northern Ireland, it was surely that exclusion does not advance the cause of peace. We must not fall into that heresy, which is so prevalent on the banks of the Potomac, that one only talks to one's adversaries when they have fulfilled a whole list of onerous preconditions; that contact with us is something for which they have to make substantive concessions. Should we not be putting that sort of appeal behind us? I can see the noble Baroness rising to her feet; I am about to sit down.
	There have been two appointments in recent days that have given some encouragement. First, Ehud Barak was appointed as the leader of the Labour party and the Minister of defence in Israel. The other is the courageous decision by the right honourable gentleman the former Prime Minister to put his efforts at the service of the international community. We need perseverance and inclusiveness in the period ahead.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I was very glad that I could at least agree with the last few sentences of the noble Lord, which were after the end of his time. I remember a wonderful Arab proverb that says that one hand alone cannot clap. As an Arab leader said to me, we shall either all live together or we shall die together. What matters is what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, that Muslims and Jews in particular must work together.
	There are issues on which we agree, one of which is to deal with peace in Palestine and Israel together. That is the view of Prince Hassan of Jordan, with whom I have worked very closely in the Coexistence Trust, in which Muslim and Jewish Members of Parliament from some 47 parliaments work together with some distinguished people from this Parliament, too. Yes, we work with Israel, but especially with Arab countries, most of which I have visited. If you want a really rough time, try to learn the Arab language and you will know how miserable you can be.
	I pay my respects to Salam Fayyad, a member of that organisation, who has been appointed Prime Minister of the West Bank. We wish him luck and peace and we hope that Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, will now help to reunite the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace. There has to be a two-state solution. Shimon Peres, who has pressed for that all these years, will be appointed President of Israel next week, and I am sure that we all wish him luck, success and health. We are proud that someone of his use can cope, as some of us still try to do.
	As for the officers, including Prime Minister Olmert and Netanyahuno, they do not agree, but there is a democracy in that place, unlike in most other states in the area. But they all want peace; they will all take different routes and they will all say that two hands alone are needed to clap. Yes, Olmert repeated last week that he hopes to withdraw from parts of the West Bank, but that must be part of an overall peace plan, so that the miseries that followed the Gaza withdrawal will not happen again.
	Let us join in saluting Tony Blair and wish him the best of the luck in a hellish task. Let us hope that two hands will clap together. Let us hope that two sides will live together, not die together. Living in salaam and shalom together should be our hope. We should help in any way that we can and we must do all that we can to assist people in that aim.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, this is very like a Shakespearian tragedy in briefI do not know if you are familiar with them. However much some people like to deny the fact, the injustice which is Palestine is one of the major causes of the rise of terrorism in this world. Ever since 1948, Palestine has been used as a battle cry and a propaganda weapon for Islamists worldwide. I have witnessed this in some African countries and, more recently, in Bangladesh.
	Palestine is what the West does to Muslims. That is the message. The Palestinians have been brought to their knees. A cultured and well educated society with high skill levels has been reduced to a third-world country. The statistics are there for all to see. If noble Lords do not believe me or any of the other speakers, the Select Committee for International Development in the other place produced a good report this year. I hope that noble Lords will read it. It tells of injusticeinjustice to Palestinians.
	The new Government talks of rebuilding the economy in Palestine and of getting the Palestinians back to work, which is very welcome. But how will they do that with road blocks, checkpoints and Bantustans divided by settler-only roads? How can an economy work in this situation? Even education is being destroyed as children are terrorised by raids on their schools. Exams in Nablus, for example, were disrupted only last week by the IDF. An unskilled and illiterate generation will emerge, capable of very little except low-wage labour. The economy cannot be rebuilt unless Israel changes its policies.
	Therefore, the problem remainshow do we persuade Israel to change? We want Israel to be a secure and prosperous stateand I say that sincerely. How can anyone in Israel believe that the present situation will give them what they want, long-term security. I am not anti-Semitic, but I am appalled by the racist, apartheid state of Israel. I use the word apartheid in its literal senseit means separationbecause that is what is going on.
	Policies of the western countries towards Israel must change. Israel must be made to understand. We must consider trade sanctions and boycotts, if necessary, to make that country obey international law. The present situation is a disaster for Palestinians. It is a disaster for Israel. It is a disaster for the whole world. It has to change.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the tenor of this Question, in particular that of the previous speaker, is very critical of Israel. They fly in the face of history and the facts as they exist today. The noble Lords ignore the peace negotiations which Israel initiated over the past 40 years. They ignore Israel's unilateral evacuation of the Gaza Strip and their hope and expectation that various settlements in the West Bank will go. They ignore the discussions between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, which are crucial if peace is to be procured. They ignore the dramatic and historic meeting on 25 June between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Israel, at which they agreed the release of 250 Fatah prisoners from Israeli jails, the remission to the Palestinian Authority of 300 million of its funds and humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza. Already a great deal of that has been accomplished.
	Above all, noble Lords ignore the shrill cries of Hamas that it will not rest until Israel is driven into the sea. They also fail to mention the rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from Gazamore than 1,000 in 2006 and nearly 300 in May this yearclaiming lives and inflicting injuries. This situation persists.
	I do not argue that Israel is without fault. One day, when Hamas renounces its present destructive stance, talks with Israel can take place. But what has been advanced by the noble Lord who asked this Question and, in particular, by the previous speaker, is distorted, one-sided and cannot possibly play a worthwhile role in securing an enduring peace for the region. For all of these reasons, it is puzzling why the supporters of this Question have not backed the Saudi Arabian plan for peace, which only Syria, Iran and Hamas have declined to support.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, very slowly my speech has been salamied as other speakers have made similar points, but it gives me an opportunity to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. The bit of her speech to which I take particular exception is her comment that Israel is an apartheid state. Perhaps we have all forgotten what an apartheid state was like. But, let me say just this about Israel: it has an Arab Minister in the Government and in the Cabinet. There is no ban on races mixing with each other. If you go to any hospital in Israel, you will see Arabs, Israelis and Druze whether they are being treated or whether they are doctors and nurses. In particular, the Weizmann Institute, of which I am the UK chairman, has Arabs and Arab professors who mix closely. Apartheid is a very dangerous word; it has all sorts of meanings and it is absolutely untrue to say that of Israel

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I explained that I used the word in the literal sense, meaning separation.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, as I said, it is a very emotive word. Perhaps I may say a few words on the nature of peace. After the 1967 and 1973 wars, Anwar Sadat, a man of vision and strength came to Jerusalem and met with another man of vision and strength, Menachem Begin. They signed a peace agreement. Israel withdrew from Sinai. Another man of vision, King Hussein of Jordan, signed a peace agreement with Yitzhak Rabin. It is beyond dispute that Israel wants peace and will withdraw from the remaining occupied territories to get it. But, as we know, between the Palestinians and the Israelis, there is nothing but the hostility of which we have spoken tonight. They came close to peace in 2000, but Arafat walked away. He was not a man of vision and strength.
	Today, we have a better situation. The West Bank is occupied by Israel, and maybe in Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party the Israelis have a partner for peace. Does he have the strength to deliver? I hope so. In Gaza, there is a Hamas mini-state. It will not recognise Israel, abide by previous agreements or renounce violence. Until such time as a Palestinian leader can negotiate and deliver a deal that will endure, it is clear that neither the British Government nor any other Government will be able to make that happen.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, 40 years on from the 1967 war and UN Security Council Resolution 242, which followed it, it is fair to say that with the situation not now so tragic, it might be described as ironic that, rather than getting closer, the two-state solution appears to be receding with the prospect of a three-state outcome looming ever larger. Hamas's military takeover of Gaza last month signalled the de facto partition, perhaps, of any future Palestinian state, setting back the prospect of real negotiations with Israel and, with it, a two-state solution.
	I fear I am not alone in my concern that the tide may now be shifting towards a situation where President Abbas, unable to bridge the widened gap between Fatah and Hamas, will use the release of the tax revenues by Israel as a stepping stone to attempt to establish a sovereign West Bank state. Though it is a generalisation of course, it is nevertheless being suggested that, with the more educated, advanced and secular Arabs living in the West Bank while Gaza is home to many radical Islamists, separate Palestinian entities may evolve into separate states themselves. That would surely be a road to disaster, with Hamas retaining support, as it does, in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus, while there are more than a quarter of a million Israelis living in illegal, it should be said, settlements in the West Bank, as well as around 185,000 living in annexed East Jerusalem.
	I did take some comfort from the Minister's assurance in your Lordships' House on 18 June that the Government would not wish to have anything to do with a three-state solution, but I hope that she will be able to say in her reply this evening what steps have been taken since then to assist in averting such an outcome. I think that many noble Lords will agree with me that Tony Blair's appointment as the quartet's envoy is a positive development.
	A Palestinian state can be achieved only by uniting the Palestinian people, but the emergency Government sworn in by President Abbas two weeks ago has, it seems to me, made that less rather than more likely. How can unity be achieved with 2.5 million Palestinians on the West Bank separated from the 1.5 million in Gaza, leaving it more than likely that Israel will feel the need to protect its own interests by reoccupying Gaza?
	I have neither the time, nor indeed, I should say, the inclination to engage with the argument as to whether dealing with Hamas is the better long-term option for our Government and other Governments. What I will say is that the current impasse might have been avoided had the policy of the quartet been less inflexible towards Hamas, who, like it or not, were democratically elected by the Palestinian people. Those Palestinians were then punished for that by the withdrawing of aid. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will signify how she intends to ensure that the inhabitants of Gaza are not deprived of the tax revenues, which are rightly theirs, as well as their share of the aid from the EU and other sources that is so vital for their day-to-day existence.

Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: My Lords, shortly after Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians launched rockets from there into Haifa, Israel's second largest city. An equivalent for us would be the Welsh Assembly suddenly deciding to launch rockets at Bristol. I do not think we would take too kindly to that.
	Israel's other major cities, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, are out of range from Gaza, but they would not be out of range from the West Bank. Is it unreasonable for the Israelis to fear that what happened in Haifa could also happen to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?
	I do not think that the Israeli army is such a great deterrent as one might think. Although it is the best trained and best equipped army in the Middle East, it was quite unable to achieve its objectives in its recent offensive in the Lebanon.
	We simply cannot ignore the real security issues facing the Israelis. Last week our new Prime Minister said:
	The first duty of the Government is the security of the people.
	That applies to Israel as well as to us.
	This is not an argument against the Palestinians having a viable stake in the West Bank and Gaza. As we have heard, most Palestinians have a wretched life, and they, too, are entitled to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, and to do so without going in fear of their lives. Nor is it an attempt to justify the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which, it is now clear, has been a disastrous policy. But it is an argument against, I would say, simplistic appeals to the Israelis to hand back territories in the West Bank without considering the wider issues.
	The Israeli Government can negotiate only with a Palestinian Government who, first, recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel, secondly, genuinely desire a political solution, and, thirdly, can persuade their own people to honour any agreements they make. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, certainly satisfies the first two conditions, but, as events in Gaza have shown, he is unable to satisfy the third.
	Our task in the West is not to make unrealistic demands on Israel or, indeed, on the Palestinians but to lend our support to Mr Abbas in his attempts to run the Palestinian state, and who is, after all, a sincere and decent man. We should recognise that both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments have enormous problems to overcome with their own people. We should also try to support organisations for coexistence such as One Voice, which is working very hard in hazardous circumstances with both Israelis and Palestinians.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for providing the opportunity. I hope the Government will take a more balanced approach to the Israeli Government, given the sensitivity of the current situation.
	If we are to make progress towards a two-state solutionthere seems to be consensus around the Chamber that we want towhich would enable peace and justice in the Middle East, surely the role of the UK Government is to encourage dialogue between those parties that are willing to work towards a peaceful solution. We cannot ignore the recent appalling events in Gaza, with which I cannot attempt to deal in a short contribution. However, I hope my noble friend Lady Royall will state whether the Government are supporting efforts by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to restart the peace process based on the Saudi plan, which was supported by the Arab League at the Riyadh summit in March.
	Surely we should welcome the positive steps made at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit on the 25 June. Prime Minister Olmert agreed to take a number of measures to assist President Abbas. The measures include the release of 250 Fatah-affiliated prisoners held in Israeli jails, the release of 300 million of Palestinian Authority funds, and the continuation of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip, including water, electricity, food and so on.
	Those are positive steps. I welcome what I thought was a balanced contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, who paid tribute to those on both sides who are trying to work towards a peaceful solution. I also recognise the importance of a Middle East peace settlement, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The difficulty, we all know, is how we work towards this settlement.
	I was truly baffled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. Does she really believe that in this debate, which has gone on for more than 40 years, all we have to do is to persuade one sidejust Israel; that we do not need to persuade any on the Palestinian side to stop making rocket attacks. It just will not work. No more than her suggestion that we should encourage boycotts and so on. Is that really going to promote dialogue in this complex and difficult situation? I do not think that anybody in this Chamber really believes, or very few believe, that that is the case.
	I, like many others, welcome the appointment of Tony Blair. He has taken on another difficult task, but he has the determination and resilience to try to succeed.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was surely right to say that it is absurd to try to deal with the Palestinian issue in a three-minute speech. It is even more absurd to try to sum up a debate of this kind in three minutes. As I am not a party spokesman, I make it clear that I am doing so only because of my long connection with this issue. For seven years I was the president of Medical Aid for the Palestinians, a charity which has done such wonderful work in the Palestinian communities.
	I was also the first party leader to visit Yasser Arafat and to talk to him at a time when it was not fashionable to do so. In fact, it was not allowed by the Government of the day in 1980 because the PLO was treated as a terrorist organisation like the ANC. I have to say that I think he was a rather successful resistance leader but a pretty appalling administration leader, as the elections recently in the West Bank proved.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, was right to remind us that the problem did not start in 1967. The Liberal Party was always blamed for the creation of the state of Israel because of the Balfour declaration. I use every opportunity to quote the 1917 Balfour declaration which envisaged the creation of the state of Israel. It said:
	It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
	Unfortunately, that has not been adhered to. That greatest statesman, Abba Eban, who was Israel's first UN representative, said after the 1967 war, when he was the country's foreign minister:
	The Jewish people fail to understand that there was something contractual in our entry into the world. We promised to share the territory. The present position
	that is, the occupation of the Palestinian territories
	is a deviation from our birth. I never knew of a country that could successfully throw its birth certificate away.
	We need to get back to those profound words in order to understand the current situation in the West Bank.
	I get particularly annoyed when I listen to Israeli Ministers dealing with the issue of the wall; to say, for example, that every nation has a right to build a wall to defend its security. That is not in doubt: I quite agree. The issue is the continued erosion of the Palestinian territory by the route of the wall. I cannot understand why we have been so weak on this issue. The Israeli Supreme Court itself has ruled that,
	only a separation fence built on the tenets of justice will afford security.
	It ruled that the security wall caused unjustified hardship to thousands of Palestinians, yet we have done nothing in the wake of further encroachments on the Palestinian territory.
	The Question of my noble friend Lord Dykes, whom I congratulate on raising this debate, refers to the return of territories, but day by day we see more and more territory taken. That is the reality of the situation on the ground.
	I hope that we will return to the Beirut Declaration of 2002, to which reference has already been made. The Arab states have offered collectively to give recognition to Israel in return for withdrawal from the territories. That is what we must hope for. We wish Tony Blair every success in his efforts as the new Middle East negotiator.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, recent events in Gaza have been a huge setback for all those working towards a two-state solution. Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip through the brutal use of force. We welcome the quartet's prompt action in convening an urgent meeting and giving its support to President Abbas. We also welcome the United States and the EU lifting the boycott on the Palestinian Authority and resuming the transfer of aid. However, it is clear that those are only preliminary steps. Given that before the latest violence, 87 per cent of the population of Gaza was living below the property poverty line, what action do the Government believe is required to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza?
	The EU High Representative has said that most EU funding will go to the West Bank, but that some would go to Gaza. What form will the assistance to Gaza take? Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no weakening of our position with regard to Hamas meeting the quartet's conditions? The Arab League agreed to establish a fact-finding committee made up of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Qatar to engage with Hamas and Fatah and report back in 48 hours. Can the noble Baroness update the House about the progress made by that committee?
	The whole House will be united in calling for the immediate release of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist. Anyone who watched the chilling video of him will feel enormous sympathy for him and his family. Given the public demonstrations by Palestinians demanding his release, I trust that the Foreign Office is taking every possible step to press for his safe return.
	Achieving peace in the Middle East and a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, based on a viable two-state solution, is one of the most pressing issues of our time. The challenge for Tony Blair will be to show that he can command the confidence of all parties, which will not be easy. The former Prime Minister's mandate includes mobilising international assistance to the Palestinians and helping to develop their institutions and economy. Inevitably, his appointment has been condemned by Hamas, but we on these Benches wish him well in his new role.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, this debate shows us once again the fundamental importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for provoking a stimulating debate on this issue, and many noble Lords for putting it into its important historical context. Naturally, I share many of the concerns expressed today. The events of recent weeks have been shocking and we need a sober and measured response from all parties and from the international community as a whole.
	The Government are pursuing a two-fold approach. First, we must respond to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. But, the over-riding objective remains the resumption of negotiations, leading to a two-state solution with an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. That is the only realistic basis for a just and lasting peace and it is the very firm position of this Government. It is our position because it is right for the people of the Middle East. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, it is also an important element of our global anti-terrorist strategy. At this stage, however, humanitarian work is our immediate priority.
	In addition to our extensive support through the EU and the UN, we announced on 19 June a bilateral contribution of 1 million to the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza and the West Bank. Our current commitment to the United Nations Relief and Works AgencyUNRWAstands at more than 100 million over five years. I pay tribute to the work of those and other humanitarian organisations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, I applaud the bravery of those who have distributed aid and provided medical services in these conditions. My condolences go to the families of those who have tragically been killed while undertaking this work.
	The senseless violence we saw in Gaza only disrupts humanitarian efforts, which in turn compounds the damage already caused to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Palestinians. Along with EU and quartet parties, we understand why President Abbas had to dismiss the national unity Government. We support his decision to form a new Government. We are now working with that Government and support their efforts to restore law and order to the occupied Palestinian territories. President Abbas and his new Prime Minister face enormous challenges, but they are men of peace. They understand that peace can come only through negotiations, not violence. They deserve our support as they try to bring stability back to the occupied Palestinian territoriesall of the occupied territories.
	We are working with our international partners to help them in their difficult task. On 18 June, EU Foreign Ministers called for an urgent political solution of the crisis. They also expressed their full support for President Abbas and his decision to declare a state of emergency and to install an emergency Government. The EU agreed to resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately. We will now develop the conditions for urgent practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the Government, support to the Palestinian civilian police, the resumption of the EU Border Assistance Mission, and intensive efforts to build the institutions of the future Palestinian state. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is right to point out the importance of a viable Palestinian economy. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchell that a description of Israel as an apartheid state is rather emotive and therefore unhelpful.
	I am delighted that Prime Minister Olmert has given President Abbas his support, and I welcome his decision to release $116 million of Palestinian tax revenues to the emergency Government. That is something that we and our European colleagues have consistently called for. It has been a long time coming and we have fought hard, but it has started to come. I say to my noble friend Lord Watson that for the first time in more than a year, all civil servants, including those in Gaza, will receive their full salary. We welcome that. We do not want a three-state solution.
	I attach the greatest importance to talks between Olmert and Abbas. We know that negotiations of this kind are difficult and often emotive. The international community can help, but success depends on Israel and the Palestinian Government working to resolve some of the contentious issues.
	My noble friend Lord Bernstein mentioned the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They clearly remain contrary to international law and an obstacle to peace. The road map is clear that Israel must freeze all settlement activitythat is settlement construction and the natural growth of existing settlementsand dismantle all outposts built since March 2001. We will continue to press the Israeli Government on that point.
	My noble friend is of course right to say that the Government of Israel have a responsibility to ensure the security of their people. They have a right to self-defence. If they want to build a barrier, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel said, they are entitled to do so. But that barrier must be on or behind the green line. Any barrier on occupied land contravenes international law and must come down. We have made that point to the Israeli Government on numerous occasions and we will continue to do so.
	We have given Israel consistent and clear messages on the need to respect and take forward the road map. Of course, Palestinian leaders must do the same. Some today have suggested that the international community has followed a misguided policy towards Hamas. I refute that. We have provided food, shelter and medical supplies to the Palestinian people. Militants have provided guns, violence and death.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made some telling points, but he will understand better than most the importance of a united position around the UN principles. Our policy has not changed. We expect Hamas to adhere to the principles set by the quartet in January 2006. Those are to renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept all previous agreements and obligations, as set out in the road map. I hope that it does that and that it takes the opportunity for dialogue and progress, but a political dialogue is impossible as long as Hamas dedicates itself to violence and destruction.
	The quartet's engagement is key. We support its statement of 15 June that called for: an urgent end to the violence; the co-operation of all parties to ensure security; and the necessary access conditions for the passage of humanitarian goods and personnel both within the Gaza Strip and at key crossing points. Indeed, as my noble friend Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rightly pointed out, the engagement of all international partnersthe EU, the Arab League and the quartetis crucial.
	Like my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Young of Norwood Green, we welcome the ongoing dialogue between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, the efforts of the Arab League to take forward the Arab peace initiative and the quartet's engagement, and the appointment of a new special representative. The meeting last week between President Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas was also a positive step forward. The international community must work together to maintain that momentum. I was asked for further information in respect of that meeting. I regret that I do not have further information this evening, but if I receive further information, I will certainly inform noble Lords.
	As noble Lords have rightly said, the work of organisations such as the excellent One Voice is also a vital part of bringing together Palestinians and Israelis better to understand each other and to work for peace. Like my noble friend Lady Ramsay, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I hope that everyone will join me in passing on best wishes to Tony Blair as he takes on his new role helping to build the institutions of a viable Palestinian state. That is vital work.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asked, very specifically, whether we intend to make representations to the Israeli Government to mark the 40th anniversary of the occupation. The continuing unresolved conflict in the Middle East remains at the core of insecurity in the region. The 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War serves only to remind us of the urgent need to return to dialogue and secure a just, lasting and permanent solution. That means a viable and independent Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. The British Government believe that the best way to help to achieve a peaceful resolution is to encourage both Israel and the Palestinians to take the steps necessary for progress through close engagement and dialogue at all levels. We will find peace in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories only through patient negotiationnegotiation which looks ahead to a two-state future, which focuses on the tragedy of the death and poverty of today's Palestinians and the security of Israeli civilians, rather than old grievances which are no longer in our power to solve.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, was right to remind us of the plight of Alan Johnston. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with the BBC and the Palestinian Authority to secure the safe release of Alan Johnston. We will continue to call on those holding Alan to release him unconditionally.
	The two-state solution is the only realistic basis for a just and lasting peace, but both parties need to fulfil their obligations in order for this to become a reality. The international community has a key role to play in helping to secure this outcome and this Government are fully committed to doing whatever they can to help.
	I appear to have finished two minutes early. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for pleasure until 8.27 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.27 pm]

Offender Management Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 33A:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause
	Prison officers: qualifications and supervision
	After section 8A of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) there is inserted
	8B National framework for qualifications of officers
	(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of a prison officer.
	(2) Guidelines under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
	8C Minimum standards for supervision
	(1) The Secretary of State must publish minimum standards for the supervision of prison officers by senior officers.
	(2) Standards published under this section must set out
	(a) the level of seniority required for the supervision of another officer;(b) minimum periods of time required for, and frequency of, supervisory meetings.
	(3) Standards published under this section may establish guidelines about the conduct of supervision..

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, this amendment will oblige the Minister to publish guidelines on qualifications, experience or training for those permitted to work as prison officers and to publish minimum standards for the supervision of prison officers. Its purpose is to probe the Government further on their plans for the prison officer workforce.
	Last Thursday your Lordships debated the Leitch report on skills. The threat to our future prosperity posed by our comparative lack of development of low and medium-level skills was made clear. There is a recognition that we need to be more effective as a nation in this area. Our education system has disappointed young people and excluded them by not providing adequate vocational qualifications. We have not made available the apprenticeship schemes for young people to train. There is a gulf between the standard of development of our social care professionals and that of many continental countries; that is most apparent in our children's homes.
	The social care workforce White Paper Options for Excellence, published in October 2006, promised a move to learning organisations staffed by professional and reflective practitioners. While I recognise the important difference between work in the secure estate and that of social care, there is much common ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out. There is, I admit, also the problem of the churn of inmates in prisons, but I hope that the Minister can say that his ambitions to some extent overlap the Options for Excellence White Paper.
	The Lord Chief Justice recently quoted Thomas Holmes, who wrote about young offenders in 1900:
	The great majority of boys and girls go wrong ... because of the indifference, idleness, or worthlessness of their parents. I am persuaded that it is not the poverty of the parents, nor the environment of the children, not the possession of criminal instincts that lead the greater bulk of boys to go wrong, but the indifference and incapability of parents.
	Of course that is simplistic, but it must be an important part of prison officers' work in rehabilitating offenders to provide the positive family role model that many inmates have never experienced, and to sustain constructive and clearly bounded relationships with offenders. Only a learning organisation with professional and reflective practitioners is likely to be able to deliver these rehabilitative relationships. Because the past history of inmates is likely to be a strong force in undermining those relationships, officers need to reflect and to be able to step around the pitfalls. Many officers also share the same background as the inmates, which complicates matters.
	It is most welcome to learn that the first joint training between probation officers and prison officers has begun. Nevertheless, there is a glaring gap between the degree-level qualifications of one profession and the low level of qualifications required by the other. It is very troubling to learn that the prison officer induction training has now been reduced from eight weeks to seven; I would appreciate a rationale from the Minister for that. A prison officer is expected to train further as part of his development, but I am concerned that the current numbers of inmates may prevent prison officers having the time to do so. I spoke to a senior officer in a private prison, who contrasted the level of manning in the private sector with that of the public sector, and complained that, as his prison lacks adequate staff, he cannot use his specialism in drugs work to train other officers. The significantly greater staff turnover again suggests that some private sector prisons may pay less attention to staff development. Will the Minister say whether private sector prisons provide their prison officers with similar opportunities for training and development to those with which prison officers in public prisons are provided?
	It is important to recall recent reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, quoted from those; they have been referred to earlier today, so I will not repeat them. However, I was prompted to table my amendment partly because of a letter from the Attorney-General in her previous role, which indicated that staff supervision was a matter for the private provider at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre and was not covered by the contract. Supervision is a vital element of continual professional development. It is essential to developing reflective practice, and indispensable in the safe management of vulnerable but troubling people. In the social care sphere, it implies regular, one-to-one supervision by a senior practitioner. According to the minimum standard, each member of staff in a children's home must be managed individually by his line manager once a month, and new workers must have more frequent supervisory meetings. Such supervision consists of ensuring that the home's policy and procedures are followed to assist the practitioner through discussion to come to a clearer understanding of his relationship with the residents. Hitherto in the prison estate, supervision has been understood to be the simple presence of a senior officer while officers are on a wing. I hope that this notion of supervision is changing.
	All this costs money. One needs to free staff from their daily work for development. One needs to free senior practitioners from their important tasks, or hire expensive consultants. My concern is that inertia may win, and the Government may not attain their goal of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent by the end of the decade, unless such requirements are made explicit. We need to raise our ambitions. Norway provides its prison officers with a year's training at a college after their first probationary year in a prison. It requires officers in training to do months of community service, and enables them to visit and observe services overseas. Indeed, they often come to this country.
	We in this country are notorious for our failure to invest in skills. Our productivity remains stubbornly low in many areas as a consequence. I look to the Minister for reassurance that his eye is firmly on a steep improvement in the training and supervision of prison officers. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I warmly endorse much of the amendment. Not for the first timeI am confident it will not be the last timeI find myself very much in agreement with the arguments of the noble Earl and his clarity is to be commended. In some ways, one can make a comparison with government Amendment No. 24, concerning the Probation Service. It responded to many of the similar arguments and decided to take a significant step forward which I commend. The logic continues into this sphere.
	We are agreed, and the Minister assured us at earlier stages of our deliberations, that everyone in the Prison Service is involved in rehabilitation. If we use the arguments about the challenges of rehabilitation in the context of the Probation Service, they would certainly apply to prisons. That underlines the importance of training, qualifications and relevant experience.
	I am sorry to split hairsif it is splitting hairsbut I have one query on the amendment. That concerns of the wording of new Section 8C(2)(a). I think it is too rigid. While experience and authority, which go with seniority, are terribly important, we do not want to slip into a Buggins'-turn culture. Occasionally, there will be outstanding people, who can be moved into positions of responsibility earlier than might be the usual practice, and there should be room for that. It should not just be an exception, which might cause a cultural curfuffle in the institution concerned, but it should be accepted that that is the case.
	Otherwise, I am very much with the noble Earl in all that he is arguing. Apart from the logic of the Government accepting the arguments on the Probation Service, to which they responded in Amendment No. 24, the important point is that increasingly very valuable work is being done in higher education in preparing police officers. At the outset, there was a certain amount of cultural suspicion about the process in the police force, but it is now recognised, more and more, that the right sort of people, with the advantage of more training and education behind them, can increase the effectiveness in the role that they play. That underlines the importance of the amendment, but I am sorry that I have a reservation on that one point.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Listowel. As far as one can see, with end-to-end management, one would expect very little to be done without involving prison officers in the scheme. I noticed how few references there are to prison officers in the Bill, and yet they must be absolutely crucial to the whole set up. I see one on page 3, in Clause 3(5), which gives some indication that prison officers might be involved in carrying out and making arrangements for probation services. However, I could not agree more with what my noble friend has said.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, commented on his concern about new Section 8C(2)(a), which states:
	the level of seniority required for the supervision of another officer.
	From an earlier discussion I had with my noble friend, I believe that that referred to the need for more support for probation officers and the same should apply within a prison. You need someone in whom to confide, to whom you can talk about your troubles. There has been far too little of that. I think I am right to follow up that point.
	Coming back to this end-to-end management, it is crucial that we see all the members as part of the process. Hence the idea of the overarching training, which could involve different levels, with people taking it at different times and maybe for different serviceseven social services could take some partbut also, of course, with different levels of people. Perhaps people would want to stop at some stage, but otherwise they could go on higher and higher, getting more responsibility for dealing with the really difficult cases, which we need to concentrate on.
	If and when the amendment is acceptedI hope that it will bethere will be a much greater role for prison officers in helping the young particularly. I want to get back to the possibility of concentrating rather more resources on some of the offenders, who we could get out of the cycle of deprivation and back into the world, where they would be more use to themselves and, indeed, to the rest of us.
	I hope that this can be taken rather more seriously to hearteven better to hear from the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General that it is already well under way and that we do not need to worry.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I support the general intention of Amendment No. 33. I absolutely agree with new Section 8B, but I have a concern about new Section 8C. I accept the minimum standards for supervision as an idea but, when the qualifications for a prison officer are set, I am concerned that the qualifications and training of middle management are frequently missed. The performance of middle management is one of the weakest things in the conduct of imprisonment. Individual prisons sometimes train individuals, but for anyone who knows anything about leadership the worst place to practise leadership is among your friends. People should be moved somewhere to learn the trade.
	It would be sensible for the Prison Service to have central trainingor at least a central training syllabuswith perhaps regional centres for middle managers. Untrained middle managers can undoubtedly undermine all the work done on the coal face with prison officers and prisoners. Therefore, in setting down a national framework, the professional qualifications must include the guidelinesthe guidelines and training going back to the earlier amendments on training.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I urge the Government at least to accept the principle behind the amendment, even if it might need redrafting in some minor details. If the argument is that this is unrealistic because the resources are not available, surely the answer is for the commencement of this section to be delayed until the resources are forthcoming.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling this amendment. Training for prison staff has arisen several times during our debates on the Bill, and it is helpful to be able to address the concerns in a coherent and joined-up fashion. Perhaps before considering the amendment, it would be wise to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff who work in our prisons. Their work is difficult, dangerous, thankless and very much hidden from public view, and of course they face particular challenges at the moment when the prison estate, as we know, is under great pressure. Yet, as all contributors to the debate have acknowledged, they have a crucial role to play in reducing reoffending, and one of the aims of this legislation is to make it easier for them to work more closely with probation staff in the community to that end.
	The amendment itself deals with two distinct issues, training and supervision. I shall deal first with training. The Prison Service takes the training of its staff very seriously indeed. Prison officer entry level training is delivered over an eight-week period, as the noble Earl understands, with weeks one and five spent in the officers' establishment. During the course, officers are trained in the purpose of the Prison Service, interpersonal skills, diversity, security, self harm and suicide, radio use, and control and restraint. Officers may then go on to train in any of a range of specialist areas according to their skills and, of course, the needs of the service. All establishments are required to produce a training plan which is integrally linked to an overall business plan.
	Staff working with young people receive specialist training as specified in the service level agreement between the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board. In 2006, the Prison Service management board approved funding for a new initiative called Professionalising the Prison Service. This is a three-year initiative that is designed to transform training across the service to ensure that staff are equipped with the right skills at the right time in their prison career. A key element is the introduction of a professional development framework. This defines clearly recognised development and progression routes for all staff employed by the service so that they have a clear understanding of the available career pathways. Learning will be competence-based and staff will be able to develop and extend their skills, knowledge and experience in order to maintain continuous professional development and, in many cases, progress to higher levels of responsibility.
	From September of this year, the achievement of a level 3 national vocational qualification in custodial care will become compulsory for new prison officers. Failure to achieve this will lead to termination of employment as a prison officer. An optional level 2 qualification will be introduced for support grades wishing to make the transition to prison officer.
	I do not think that it is necessary to make provision for this in the statute. Comprehensive information about the qualifications, experience and training required by a prison officer is already widely available in the public domain. We have agreed to make express provision in the Bill for probation training in response to particular concerns raised in the context of the new arrangements for the delivery of probation services. But the situation is very different in relation to the more established arrangements for prison training. There is no such statutory provision now and I do not think it is necessary for the future.
	I turn now to the second part of the amendment, which proposes setting out the seniority of supervising officers and the length and frequency of supervisory meetings. This degree of operational detail does not need to be set out in such a rigid way or, for that matter, to be underpinned by statute as the amendment suggests. But I will seek to address the concerns which lie behind the amendment by setting out how supervision arrangements work in practice. Unlike staff in other parts of the offender management service, few prison officers work on their own, or out of sight of other officers or senior members of staff. Because of this, the supervision they receive is continuous, flexible and less dependent on formal procedures such as supervisory meetings. It is difficult to see how the publication of standards would provide any improvement in the current situation. Supervision and oversight differ according to local conditions and are presently managed well within such a framework. Standards in these circumstances would be difficult to establish and then to measure, and any increase in formal procedures is likely to add significantly to the burden of bureaucracy and the cost to the service without necessarily offering any corresponding increase in the quality of service delivered.
	As to the seniority of supervision, which the amendment also seeks to prescribe, again it is difficult to see how such a standard could be effectively constructed or implemented. The Prison Service is already a very well structured organisation with a strong tradition of grades and seniority, and there is little day-to-day question about supervisory authority. But it is equally the case that the Prison Service has developed a strong reliance on multi-disciplinary teams, often led by managers who are not senior officers or any part of the officer grading structure but who provide supervision, oversight and, in some instances, even direct management of prison officers.
	The purpose of the amendment is well understood and much appreciated, but its implementation and operation would be fraught with difficulties of definition and scope. For those reasons and the reassurance I have given, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	Let me deal with a few other points that came up during the course of the debate. The noble Earl thought that prison officer training was going to be reduced to seven weeks. I can knock that one on the head. I made it clear from my speaking note that prison officer training is eight weeks; there has been no reduction and no reduction is intended. He also suggested that private prison staff were perhaps lacking in experience and poorly trained. Private prison staff undergo a thorough training programme, which is equivalent to that in the public sector Prison Service, and successful completion is a condition of employment. The course offers a variety of modules which are tailored to the needs of the learner and the post to ensure that at the end of the course the person has the necessary technical and general skills to perform their duties. The course they undertake is approved by the comptroller as being fit for purpose.
	Course content, training standards and procedures are specified within the terms of each individual contract, which is an additional pressure point in raising standards. The comptroller is able to attend any training module he may wish and can request copies of all training materials given to staff to ensure that proper quality training is provided. The first private prison was opened, of course, in 1992, as has been much discussed today, and there is a significant amount of operational experience now within the system at all levels. This has been recognised by external bodies, such as the prison inspectorate, and the former head of the Prison Service, Martin Narey. I cannot accept that private prisons recruit people of lower calibre. They are delivering the standards which we require within the service and which we seek to set in contracts.
	The noble Earl also referred to the Norwegian experience. The problem is that it is not easy to compare prison systems across Europe because the roles and duties of prison officers differ widely from state to state. Offender management arrangements have grown up on national lines and responsibilities in respect of offender management are often very different. I was interested when the noble Earl said that Norwegian staff came over to the United Kingdom. I can only assume that was because they thought they had something to learn from us, which is a good sign. We are keen to examine best practice; we certainly examine it from across Europe. There is considerable regard for UK Prison Service practices and we have attempted to share with our European partners our best practice. I was entertained to find out, for example, that in Bulgaria prison governors are being led by the experience drawn from an English prison governor who has advised them on their reform programme. That, too, is a good sign.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made the point that there was a lack of reference to or mention of prison officers in the Bill. That is because the Bill seeks to change the arrangements for delivering probation services and increase the involvement of other providers; legislative change is not required for the Prison Service in the same way. Where it is right, however, the Bill makes provision particularly to clarify the role of probation staff in prisons and to enable prison staff to deliver programmes in the community, so it creates that necessary flexibility. That, in essence, explains why there are fewer references to the Prison Service and its particular needs and problems.
	I have provided a rather long explanation but, I hope, a reasonably comprehensive one, and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time and trouble to make those helpful points. My impression, from discussing private prisons and visiting one, is that they can be very good, but there is pressure due to fewer people working on the front line. That is generally true. My understanding was that the eight-week induction is therefore recognised to be quite short for working in that sort of setting. Ongoing training on the job would ensure that we could be confident of the security of the work they do.
	The Minister has helped me to a degree with what he has said, and I will study it carefully, but I am concerned that the day-to-day pressures of fewer people on the front line with such a large prison populationthe fact that the staff have to walk with the prisoner from their cell to the gymnasium or whereverappear to be preventing that continual training afterwards.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but when he says fewer people, I am not sure what he means. Fewer people than when?

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I mean the ratio of staff to a particular job: the number of staff on a wing or in a gymnasium. One might argue that they are being more efficient in what they are doing, but there is a drawback. As a senior officer, a man who runs a wing, said, I can't get off to train other people elsewhere, unlike those working in public prisons, because the ratio of inmates to staff is not as favourable in our settings. But I will study carefully what the Minister said. I also appreciate the contributions from across the Housewell, from this side of the Houseon this matter. I did not intend anything by saying that.
	I apologise for reading from a script. We have taken some time on the amendment, and I wanted to keep my contribution as short as possible. That is why I read so closely from a speaking note. What the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about training is what is spelt out in the White Paper on social care, Options for Excellence. To achieve the aim of raising the standard of professionalism of those on the front line, one has to concentrate on developing the first-line managers to ensure that, when they move from working on the front line to their first management position, they get a good start. One also has to look at the senior management to make that work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 33 [Accommodation in which period of detention and training to be served]:

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Clause 33, page 22, line 35, at end insert
	( ) After section 100(3) (offenders under 18: detention and training orders), there is inserted
	(3A) On the making of a detention and training order, it shall be the duty of the court and the provider of the youth detention accommodation to ensure that the child's well-being is considered.
	(3B) Well-being, in relation to children and young people, is a reference to their well-being having regard to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004..

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is the first of four related amendments that in some ways we should have grouped, which are about special groups and how we deal with them in our offender management system. I apologise that your Lordships have the inexpert Liberal Democrat Member to speak on this topic, but unfortunately my noble friend Lady Linklater is kept in Edinburgh at the moment by family concerns. The purpose of the amendment is to look further at some of the issues my noble friend raised in Committee on how we handle young people.
	The key to the amendment is the duty to ensure that a child's well-being is considered. We know from a great deal of research that a large proportion of young children who receive detention and training orders have themselves suffered maltreatment and have a range of psychological and other vulnerabilities. We therefore wish to make sure that those are picked up at an early stage. We know very well that investment at this stage which may help to break the downwards spiral into adult offending is extremely important. We are concerned that suicide or harm to others is also a high risk for young people in safe accommodation and we are also uncomfortably aware that problems with young offenders are a gift to the tabloid press and therefore the mix of accommodation provided, not too strong but also not too weak, requires careful assessment as they come in.
	The amendment's purpose is to place as strong a duty as possible on those at an early stage of dealing with young offenders to look beneath the surface of the immediate problem, to look at a special educational needs assessment and a mental or physical health assessment to make sure as far as possible that we can pick up some of the underlying causes before it becomes too late. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I arise briefly simply to say that it is right that the matter is raised in the Bill's context. I know that it is a matter that we have discussed on several occasions on Criminal Justice Bills in the past. That does not mean that it should not be raised again because it reflects the proper concern that noble Lords have with regard to the welfare of children.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will be all too aware that yesterday in the context of the UK Borders Bill I raised an amendment that would impose within the immigration system the duty to promote the welfare of children as under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. I welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has moved the amendment, because it is right that we should continue to press the Government to try to work out the ways in which the needs of children and promoting the safety of children within the criminal justice system can be balanced against what we all want, which is maintaining the safety of the public. That is a theme of the later amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. This matter cannot be resolved at present, but we must continue to press it until we are able to find a solution.
	I approach the matter from the point of view that children are children first and that at some stage they must come out of the criminal justice system and be responsible adults. If they come out in such a damaged way that they have no opportunity to act as a responsible adult, that is to the disadvantage of the whole of society. That is a glib thing to say, but it lies at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. Having made that point, I will not take part in the debates on the later amendments because that reflects my concern. I am going to try to pursue the matter, particularly through the UK Borders Bill, because there is a discrete matter there to which I hope we may be able to find a resolution. Within the context of this Bill, we will not find the answer.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has made those points because their great importance is having them in the Bill to remind people that our children must be treated as children. I say that bearing in mind my experience in trying to make this point as chief inspector when the provisions of the Children Act did not apply and it was alleged that they would be added to be applied in principle. That was not good enough and time and time again one found that it was not happening. Therefore it is hugely important that it should be in the Bill and as the noble Baroness said it is right that things will flow from that if it is there, so I would like to see the amendment included.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I shall try to put this very important subject into a human context. I well recall the late Lady Lester telling me how she had visited a child in prison who had been involved in one of the most hideous crimes that had happened in many years. It was a really horrible story. She said that what really distressed her as she got to know the child through visiting her in prison was the discovery that that child had never ever been loved.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I endorse the amendment. Children's well-being is still not stressed as much as it ought to be even though we know increasingly that the child's well-being and involvement in their own process needs to be taken much more seriously. Other points will be raised later, but I make that one now.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, will be very pleased with him for having represented her so well. We send her our best wishes because we know that she has difficulties with which to deal.
	I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the difficulties that we have in relation to children. They are children first but on occasion we have to deal with some of the most heinous offences which one or two of them commit. My noble friend Lord Judd is right to say that many of these children have never ever been loved by anybody. That is a tragedy for them. Therefore, we should pay the most acute attention to their welfare.
	Courts dealing with children and young people are required to have regard to their welfare. That is provided for by Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This amendment would additionally require them to have regard to the young person's well-being, in the light of the factors listed in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004.
	The distinction between welfare and well-being is an interesting, important and rather subtle one. The House will have extensive opportunities to reflect on it during consideration of Clause 9 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, which was recently introduced in another place. I agree with her that that is probably the better place for these issues to be more fully debated. Clause 9 seeks to define the purposes of sentencing as regards young people under 18. It covers not only detention and training orders but all other forms of sentence for under-18s and therefore provides a more appropriate opportunity for consideration of this issue than the Bill we are considering today.
	The amendment would also apply the duty to the provider of the establishment in which the young person was to be accommodated. Under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, governors of young offender institutions, directors of secure training centres and local authorities are already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We consider that this clear duty, which covers all young people in custody and not only those who receive detention and training orders, is sufficient in itself. There is no case for a separate duty covering a less extensive range of young people in custody.
	Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for always ensuring that this children's issueas the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, saidis raised because it is important for us never to forget the importance of these issues. We shall deal with the other age groups on later amendments.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Perhaps we can discuss between now and Third Reading whether any small adjustments in the language of the Bill can meet some of these points. In the interests of not delaying the House on the next three amendments, I simply say that we must remember, with regard to this amendment and the three that follow, that the underlying purpose of the Bill is not just more effective offender management but also the reduction of reoffending and the size of the prison population. This applies in particular to the various special categories that we are dealing with and most to children coming into the offender management system for the first time. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 35:
	After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause
	Young offenders not to be detained in prisons
	(1) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words
	(a) , if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons or his class or description,, and (b) and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison.
	(2) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) omit paragraph (c).
	(3) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) substitute
	106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution
	(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows
	(a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102.
	(2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows
	(a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.
	(3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below.
	(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently
	(a) to a detention and training order, and(b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
	he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.
	(6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term.
	(4) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing back the amendment, which was discussed in detail last time. I was not present then and I read with considerable care the comments of the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General. I fully understand that there will not yet be a full examination of how 18 to 24 year-olds as an age-group might be considered because that will need establishments for 18 to 24 year-olds and only them, which will obviously take time and expense.
	In the mean time we have the problem of 18 to 20 year-olds. I accept that there are possible emergencies something may happen and somebody has to actbut, bearing in mind that they are young offenders, it is not good enough to suggest that they may still go to prison without special being provisions made. I suggest that the Minister should consider requiring that no 18 to 20 year-old may be committed to an adult prison unless ministerial clearance has been given. In other words, if the Prison Service wishes for a particular purpose to put an 18 to 20 year-old in prison, it should do so only for a minimum period and must explain to the Minister why, and must seek ministerial permission to do so. That is one way of controlling the situation.
	I say that because I will never forget my first visit to Holloway when the governor told me that there were four 15 year-olds in there but that they did not know where they were and that there were no provisions for them. Every time I went into Holloway I saw that there were children there who should not have been there and we have to prevent that. Such as suggestion, which that might not be included in the Bill, could be considered within the Ministry of Justice. It is worth considering. In view of the amendment on which we voted earlier this afternoon, I am glad this amendment has been tabled again. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I very warmly support the amendment. My noble and learned friend has repeatedly reassured usand it is good to have heard her say itthe whole task of everyone involved in the legislation is rehabilitation. We know that there are too many examples where young people in the age group referred to have been sent to prison and that no progress with them is possiblein fact, there is a negative effect. I need not go into all those arguments now because my noble and learned friend knows them better than I do and I am sure that she shares the concern. Sometimes in public policy, if it becomes clear that something should not happen, so long as there are arrangements in place which say that in exceptional circumstances it can happen, a process of rationalisation can begin and that approach becomes the easy option. Sometimes one just has to say, It will not happen. The amendment does not say that; as the noble Lord has explained, prison could still happen in extremis, with ministerial approval. This is a desperately needed and long overdue measure. I support him completely.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly understand the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham; I am pleased that the noble Lord referred to the extensive debate that we had on the last occasion. He would then have read my Written Ministerial Statement on 8 May, in which I set out the actions we are taking in relation to offenders aged 18 to 24, both in custody and in the community. I think that there is general acceptance that that is probably the right bracket for us to look at, not least because of the differing rates of maturity and the difficulties that young people, who become young adults, face in that situation.
	It is important for us to look at the consequences of removing the power to place such people in prison. They would be far-reaching and unacceptable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, understands those consequences, and that he very much wants us to have a workable system. At the moment, I do not think that this is workable. I entirely agree that we need to give proper consideration to the needs of young adults; that is obviously what lay behind my Statement on 8 May. However, just as there is not much difference between a 17 year-old and an 18 year-oldas the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who is not in her place, said in Committeethere is little to separate the 20 year-old from the 21 year-old. It is of course necessary to have thresholds distinguishing children and young people from young adults and young adults from adults. The points at which we draw those lines are a matter of judgment and may be subject to change. We should not regard the age of 21 as a perpetually fixed point. The measures that I announced on 8 May cover 18 to 24 year-olds, so it would be odd if I were now to say that under-21s should never come into contact with anyone aged 21, 22, 23 or 24. That would put in tension and conflict the concept that we have just agreedthat that bracket is sensible for us to look at.
	Of course we have to take steps to safeguard vulnerable young adults but the amendment, if enacted, would do nothing to achieve that. It would simply make the whole system unworkable. That is because, in a technical sense, all young people over 17 who are remanded to custody are in prison, though in reality they are likely to be in part of a young offender institution that has been formally designated as a prison for the purposes of the law. While the House shares the noble Lord's concern for the welfare of young adults in prison, I am sure that it would not wish to add to existing operational difficulties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raises an interesting suggestion as to whether there could be some form of ministerial oversight. I do not have the numbers at my fingertips at the moment, but I think that they might make that unworkable. However, I shall raise that with the Ministry of Justice. I recall that I would often ask for certain categories of cases to be referred to me, so that I had an overview of what had happened. It was not necessarily a case-by-case basis, but a report on how many and when, so that I could get a flavour. Maybe that could be in the contemplation. At the moment, the noble Lord's suggestion does not simpliciter seem workable, but maybe we could look at something from a practical point of view that might assist, to hone in and make sure that the eye is kept on this ball. I would be happy to convey that to the Ministry of Justice.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her answer, particularly for the last part of it. She mentioned that there is not much difference between 17 and 18 and between 20 and 21. In fact, there is sometimes very little difference between 15 and 24, and it is very much on a case-by-case basis. Bearing in mind that we are talking about individual offenders, this is an individual matter. It may be that when you look at it there are some fairly robust youngsters for whom this is not likely to do damage, but the Prison Service hopefully will know who those people are, and it is those special cases that one worries about.
	I am grateful that the noble and learned Baroness is prepared to investigate that. The fact that it is being investigated may send a message round and stop people doing it unnecessarily. Sometimes it is done for convenience rather that thought of the person. Those cases used to worry me. When I found this happening, and asked why they were there, they had just been sent there. I am enormously grateful for the care that was taken with the answer. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 37:
	After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause
	Mental health diversion schemes
	Mental health diversion schemes
	(1) The Secretary of State shall establish mental health diversion schemes to operate at all
	(a) crown courts;(b) magistrates' courts; and(c) police stations.
	(2) Under this section mental health diversion scheme means a scheme under which all those charged with an offence shall be considered for
	(a) assessment by a qualified mental health nurse; and(b) if in the opinion of the mental health nurse the person charged is suffering from a mental health disorder, diversion from the criminal justice system towards treatment in a mental health facility.
	(3) For the purposes of this section a mental health diversion scheme may be established to operate at one or more of the places listed in subsection (1).

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am sorry about the repetitiveness. This amendment was also discussed in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, raising the question of court diversion schemes, said:
	The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. The police also have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety.
	He went on to say:
	The Government accept that more should be done in this area, but believe that the best way to take this forward is by non-legislative means. To legislate would be to force local commissioners to implement a one-size-fits-all service that took no account of local need.[Official Report, 12/6/07; col. 1657.]
	It was therefore very difficult to find one way that might bring about the court diversion schemes and police diversion schemes for the mentally ill that this amendment seeks.
	My concern about the Minister's answer is that he seemed to imply that there was no way in which this measure could be properly implemented. We are not looking for one-size-fits-all provision. We are interested in the provision of a diversion scheme in courts and in police stations to make certain that the mentally disordered are diverted to get the treatment that they deserve and need and are not then confined unnecessarily in custody. The Mental Health Act, which the Minister quoted, offers the way ahead. The Mental Health Bill has just been through this House, and diversion schemes were mentioned during its passage. I would have thought that that was the way of taking this ahead, and I commend it to the Ministry of Justice. It must be responsible for seeing that something happens; it is responsible for the courts. I know that the Home Office is still responsible for the police, but all this joined-up government that we hear about should be able to bring that about.
	Under the Mental Health Act, a requirement should be placed on local authorities. There will not necessarily be a one-size-fits-all provision, but it has to be laid down that it must happen. It must have legislative means of some kind, because if it is non-legislative that usually means that it will not happen. It has not happened up until now. When I tried to find out how many diversion schemes there were, I could only get information from the national schizophrenia society. Neither the NHS nor anyone else had a list of where the schemes were, which is unfortunate. As everyone has been paying attention to the needs of people with mental health problems, it behoves us to make certain that this provision to prevent them going into custody and to get them treatment is considered and not just put in the too difficult tray, when the Mental Health Act probably offers the way ahead. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, not because I know whether the exact form of words in it is right or whether this particular method will achieve its aim, but because I want to hear from the Attorney-General what we will do to inject some very necessary urgency into the issue of mental health in the criminal justice system. It would be odd to have on the statute book an Offender Management Act that did not seek to make effective provision for a situation in which 70 per cent of those in the criminal justice system have two or more diagnosable mental illnesses.
	Surely, we have to admit that we have run as a society into a position whereby the number of such people who have found themselves in the criminal justice systemI do not belittle what may have been the consequences of many of their actionshas reached such a proportion that a Bill without such a clause would attend effectively to 30 per cent of those in the criminal justice system and not the other 70 per cent. I hope that the Attorney-General has something to say to us, if she does not feel able to support the amendment.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, very much for the reasons put forward by the right reverend Prelate. I shall make two or three brief observations. We have been reminded that the courts and the police have power. The prisons are still full of people who should not be there. Why do I say that? It is because the prisons and the dedicated staff who try to work with these people do not have the resources, training or qualifications to do the work necessary with people with mental problems or mental illness.
	I said in Committee or at Second Reading that during my visits to prisons I have been impressed by the exasperation of some of the very best prison officers who, because of their general qualifications and insight, recognise that they are not doing any good. It is not just that they are not doing any good, but they are often aggravating the mental condition of the person in prison and increasing the likelihood of reoffendingit is not just a passive role with no impact. For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seems absolutely right. I am glad to support him in saying that this issue urgently has to be addressed, as the right reverend Prelate said, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will have something reassuring to say.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment also. It is crucial, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, to deal with this matter urgently. A high percentage of offenders have some form of mental illness, and this is yet another area where women suffer more than men. The degree of mental illness, often more than one type of mental illness, is higher among women offenders than men. I hope that this matter will be given the urgency it needs.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House. We recognise that this issue overlaps with other legislation currently going through Parliament: the Mental Health Bill and the criminal justice Bill. The number of prisoners with mental health problems is part of the overcrowding problem. If we are to reduce prison overcrowding it must be dealt with. We would like to hear a clear message from the Minister about how the Government intend to give this much greater priority.
	When I was a parliamentary candidate in Yorkshire, there were two large mental hospitals in the constituency I fought. Both have now become genteel suburban housing areas. We all recognise that too much of the mental health accommodation that was there until the 1970s has gone. That is one of the reasons we have ended up with people being misclassified into prisons. We need to reverse some of that. Part of that involves greater mental health provision, which this Government have not yet invested enough in, but it partly involves what we are talking about here; that is, ensuring that people whose problems are very much matters of mental health do not go straight into the prison system.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which we first discussed in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledgedI am sad that the noble Lord was not here to discuss it with us, but he has retabled itwould require the Secretary of State to establish mental health diversion schemes to operate at all Crown Courts, magistrates' courts and police stations. I made clear in Committee that, although we agree with much of the intent prompting this amendment, we do not agree that a legislative approach is the right way to achieve the outcome the noble Lord desires. We also desire that outcome, and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate patently wish to see it.
	I cannot agree with the noble Lord's assertion that there is no way that the proposal can be properly implemented as it is. I shall explain why.
	We want to have effective court diversion schemes, and we plan to work towards improvement in this area. There can be no doubt that people who come into contact with the criminal justice system and who suffer from a mental disorder should be given the treatment they need.
	However, we do not believe that this should be achieved through legislation. The amendment is overly prescriptive and would not allow local arrangements to reflect local needs. With the creation of a devolved National Health Service, we moved away from a top-down, centrally prescribed system. Local communities and local NHS staff have welcomed that change. We have committed to reducing the number of central targets and have concentrated instead on providing a framework in which local arrangements can flourish and meet the needs of communities.
	We fully accept that the court liaison and diversion schemes currently in operation vary in the quality of the support they can provide. There are areas of best practice, but there are also areas where schemes are failing to thrive. We also know that the better diversion services provide a range of multi-disciplinary team activities across the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system, and support the police earlier in the path to custody for those vulnerable patients who repeatedly come before them. We applaud these schemes and would wish to see more such services. However, the way to get there is not through legislation.
	We are fully committed to publishing central guidance this year to the NHS and partner agencies, which support the development of local services that build on the best of what already exists. We believe that it is much more likely that schemes will develop out of this and be well supported if local benefits are clear to local commissioners, and if a strong evidence-based message is given by the centre. To be really effective, we argue, these schemes need buy-in from all the relevant agencies. We believe that the way to win hearts and minds is by demonstrating the evidence, providing examples of best practice and setting out a framework through guidance. As I said, we shall produce that guidance later this year.
	We already know that the evidence from places where schemes work points to the importance of good governance, shared ownership, multidisciplinary working and schemes operating in an integrated system of offender care rather than in isolation. Factors such as multi-agency provision, financial stability, information-sharing protocols, effective leadership, an adequate level of staffing and clear role definition are vital.
	The benefits may include support for local community safety targets, targets to reduce reoffending, improvements in the appropriateness and timeliness of treatment and earlier interventionI sense that that was where the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was coming from on this issue. If those who actually provide services on the ground understand the benefits, the support and enthusiasm will be greater and it is more likely that the services will prosper.
	Statutory arrangements are already in place to enable the courts and the police to divert people into treatment for mental disorder. I made this point in the previous debate but I will make it again. The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. Also, the police have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety. This is to enable him to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a social worker, and to allow any necessary arrangements to be made for his treatment or care.
	The Government fully accept that more should be done in this area but believe that we should work within the existing legislative framework and seek to bring change through other means. It is far better to convince communities of the need for these services rather than dictate from the centre. We should allow local health commissioners to make their own assessment of the needs of their local communities and provide the right people and services in the right configuration to meet those needs. We take very seriously the concerns of the noble Lord who introduced this amendment and all those who have spoken in favour of it today. I hope that the reassurance that I have offered will provide a good reason for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw his amendment. I was particularly surprised that

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I fully accept the sincerity with which the Minister addresses us about the importance of a non-legislative approach. However, as I understand it, it will always be simpler and, from the point of view of the local community and its budget holders, cheaper to allow the custodial solution to be adopted. It will always be difficult to defend, in a local community, the provision of mental health services for offenders when they are not available for non-offenders. I therefore think that, against the Minister's arguments against a legislative approach, is there not a case for some central setting of a direction and a real tendency to get us to move in the direction of more adequate provision in the urgent situation that we face?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in the first instance, I said that legislative powers were available and that those powers were there for the courts and the police to use. Secondly, we are prepared to give leadership and guidance in this. I made two references to the value of bringing forward guidance, and I remind the right reverend Prelate, who I know is greatly experienced in the field, that we are committed to improving that guidance during the current year.
	I shall take up one of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He said that he had great difficulty and had to go to the Schizophrenia Society to find out how many diversion schemes there were. The number of schemes increased during the 1990s, when some 10 million of pump priming was provided by the Home Office. We have worked with NACRO, and the database that we have jointly put together currently shows 143 schemes. We can identify other schemes as a product of the Revolving Doors report of 2006. So there is clearly a large number of such schemes in operation, and I am sure that they are doing extremely valuable work. NACRO's survey says that most of those schemes operate for four or five days a week. Fewer than 20 per cent operate across the spectrum of police station, court and prison, but almost 50 per cent had some joint funding arrangements in place, usually with social services. Some are provided by the voluntary sector.
	So there is a lot of data there and a lot more information that I am sure can be taken from the NACRO survey. That shows that progress has been made; it shows also that there is much more to be done. It is important that we persist in developing this. We are trying to ensure that the schemes work without the need for recourse to a centralist, rather bureaucratic framework. We want to encourage them through the adoption of best practice and effective guidance, as I just said to the right reverend Prelate.
	I think that I have covered all the other points that were raised during the discussion. In conclusion, I tell the noble Lord that I understand the spirit behind the amendment. Clearly, we are going in the right direction. Much good work is being undertaken; the survey demonstrates that. More be done, more can be achieved. I certainly see the need for it to develop, but we think that the legislative straitjacket that the noble Lord suggests in his amendment is unnecessary and may inhibit the development of good quality schemes. For those reasons, I urge him to withdraw the amendment, but I have found this a useful debate, and the points made have been very valuable to us.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. He will not expect me to agree with everything that he said and accept it, any more than he necessarily agreed with what I said. I am especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for twice intervening with his habitual wisdom and understanding of the problem, and other noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
	I am not talking about how things are done but what things are done. That seems to be missing in all this. I am not after something that is legislative and bureaucratic; I am after a clear direction of what has to be done. All right, it is given to a health commissioner. Somebody must tell the health commissioner. They must be given guidelines and a framework. The Minister mentioned 143 schemes. How many courts are there in which there is no scheme? How many police stations are there where there is no one available on call to come to help? All that links with provision. Is there provision? Is there provision for children? Is there provision for women? What are the arrangements for that? This has been a crying need for goodness knows how many years, and it has failed through lack of overall direction. In a lot of the Bill, the Government have been keen to bring in direction on the grounds that provision has not worked, yet here they are refusing to introduce direction to something that has not worked. That is inconsistent.
	Part of the problem is that ministries other than the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health are involved. The Home Office is involved, because it controls the police. The sense of urgency that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester rightly mentioned is needed in this area, because the problem is not going away; it is getting worse. When I went to Winson Green prison, I discovered that they had a diversion officer in the prison to pick up those who had slipped through the diversionary net to make certain that, if possible, they did not get further than the first night, for which there were special arrangements. That shows that prisons are recognising that the system is not working.
	I am glad that the Government are thinking about it, but I wish and hope that the new Secretary of State for Justice will consider the matter with the urgency that it deserves. I anticipate that he will; I know that he understands the problem because I spoke to him about it when he was in his previous post. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, which is not to say that I will not return with it on Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 37ZA:
	After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause
	Children and young persons previously in care
	After paragraph 19C of Part II of Schedule II to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (children looked after by local authorities) there is inserted
	Children and young persons in custody
	19D (1) It is the duty of the local authority looking after a child who is taken into custody to
	(a) advise and assist that child with a view to promoting the welfare of the child;(b) provide to the custodial authorities any information necessary for safeguarding the welfare of the child; and(c) maintain contact with the child and the custodial authorities throughout the period of custody.
	(2) The duty of the local authority under this paragraph shall extend to any child or young person who has been in the care of the local authority at any time during the period of 24 months prior to his being taken into custody..

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, this amendment places a duty on local authorities to keep in contact with children in their care who are taken into custody or young people who have spent any time in care within the past two years. I hope it may be helpful to your Lordships if I read from the script as it will be quicker than if I try to speak from memory.
	This amendment is to some extent redundant in terms of existing statute. Its intention is to probe Her Majesty's Government on what steps are being taken to remedy the identified flaws in co-operation between local authorities and prisons and to ask how the proposals in the recent White Paper on children in public care may influence this relationship.
	I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote for prompting the amendment and putting her name to it. Her Majesty's Government funded the National Children's Bureau to produce a guide for practitioners looking after children in custody. Written by Di Hart it was published last year and entitled Tell Them Not to Forget About Us. From her research Ms Hart concluded:
	The picture that emerged was one of fragmented planning and poor outcomes. There was a tendency for the welfare approach of local authority children's services to be marginalised whilst youth justice processes took centre stage ... There were examples of effective joint working but these were achieved in spite of, rather than because of, the systems within which practitioners were operating. The children themselves expressed a real fear of being forgotten in the midst of this confusion.
	I welcome the recruitment of social work teams to young offender institutions. I am grateful for the replies to my parliamentary Questions on this issue. Can the Minister provide further reassurance that information on a child's care status is being captured and shared between social care and youth justice agencies or with the adult secure estate? I hope that the Minister can assure me that staff in both the adult and juvenile estate are adequately informed to take appropriate action. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that looked-after children or young people who are care leavers should not feel abandoned or forgotten by outside agencies. I hope she will recognise that these children and young people value, above all, relationships and need to feel that someone is taking an interest in them. Does the Minister agree that children's services must remain involved and be the key agency as they have first responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in a way that other agencies do not? I am putting several questions to the Minister and I would be happy to receive a letter in response because of the late hour and the detail required.
	Has the fit between sentence plans and care/pathway plans been improved so as to avoid the sentence plans undermining the ultimate success of children in public care and care leavers? How are contacts between children and their local authority social worker maintained? What progress is being made in ensuring the duty of local authorities to maintain contact with care leavers is delivered for young people in custody?
	One of the most welcome proposals in the White Paper Care Matters, which was published last month, is the introduction of a veto by children leaving care before the age of 18 and making available foster care placements to the age of 21. What guidance is there for local authorities on how long they should keep a placement in foster care or a children's home open for a young person who has entered custody?
	Government departments have recently been restructured. Where does the ministerial responsibility for young people from public care in custody now lie? The role of personal officers is particularly crucial to young people who have been in care as they are most likely to have an unsatisfactory family experience. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has often reported that the personal officer role is insufficiently developed. How is the Minister addressing this? Where there are 60 young people to three or so officers in the wing of a young offender institution, the personal officer role may be particularly difficult to implement. While recognising current constraints, will the Minister be seeking to improve that ratio as soon as possible?
	I have one further point about supervision. I am not sure that I expressed my gratitude well enough but I was most grateful when the Minister responded to my questions about the training and supervision of prison officers. I recognise what he says about supervision and the informal manner in which prison officers are with each other much of the time but these people are very vulnerableespecially in view of the context of the recent debate on mental health issues and concerns about women in custody as well. Senior officers and junior officers need private time to talk, for example, about how an officer feels when a young person self-harms and how one carries on in one's job. How does an officer deal with being scared by someone with whom they are dealing? How can they talk in public about something like that? Sometimes they may simply feel like hitting an inmate because they drive them up the wall. How does an officer say that publicly to another officer? Such discussions need to have a place, and I am not sure whether they do at the moment. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Listowel is absolutely right that these are the most vulnerable children. They may have committed some pretty heinous offences. Equally, however, we know that their backgrounds were almost certainly a major contributory factor. Care Matters was a brilliant White Paper, and we very much hope that it will deal with most of these children's needs. If my interpretation of it is right, it will apply at least as much to children who have ended up in prison, even though they were originally in care. The important thing is that the local authorities do not forget themindeed, are not allowed to forget themand see them as a continuing responsibility.
	Brilliant voluntary organisations such as Home-Start, and certainly the churches, which are involved in many activities such as mentoring and really befriending a child in this situation who has probably never really had a loving, caring parent, are absolutely essential. It is absolutely crucial that extra special attention is paid to seeing that there are proper arrangements for accommodation, training and jobs. May we be reassured that the children who have ended up in prison will be at the top of the list? For goodness' sake, let us use the resources that we hope will be saved as the cycle of deprivation continues unless stopped, with children ending up yet again in prison, to prevent them going into care and entering prison in the first place. That is where it should all begin. I know that the Government have quite a strong intention in this regard.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Listowel, if only because it has been known for a very long time that a large proportion of offenders, and therefore of prisoners, have been in care. One example of good practice comes from Northern Ireland. Lay representation for young offenders in institutions has been pioneered by Nacro, which has provided trained volunteers with whom young people in custody can share their personal problems and complaints. The representatives have been able not only to befriend them, which my noble friend Lady Howe mentioned, but to present their cases at disciplinary and other hearings. Is there an equivalent scheme in England and Wales? If not, could something similar be piloted, at least in a few areas?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very conscious of the time. We have had a very powerful exposition in support of the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and some very helpful comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I know of a few pilot schemes that are similar to that described by the noble Lord, but I do not know whether any match it precisely. He made some very interesting points about how a peer group can assist young people to heal and change. That is an important consideration.
	The noble Earl's interest in this issue is well known. I commend him for it. His amendment draws attention to the disproportionate number of young people in the youth justice system who are looked after or who have previously been looked after by a local authority. I agree with him about the quality and nature of the Government's White Paper. I could not have been more pleased by its contents and I share the warmth and enthusiasm that many people have expressed about it. Your Lordships know that that was published only a week ago. We set out how determined we are to improve the plight of children in care. We committed to the fact that the aspiration of the state for such children should be no less than each parent's aspiration would be for their own child. We set out firm actions to make that happen. Therefore, the noble Earl is right to say that that aspirationthat responsibilitygoes beyond the literal legal limit as regards their age.
	In the White Paper, we recognise that, despite improvements to the outcomes of the lives of children and young people in care in recent years, there remains a gap between the outcomes of those in care and the outcomes of all children. For example, 9.6 per cent of children in care, aged 10 or over, were cautioned or convicted for an offence during the yearalmost three times the rate for all children of that age.
	The noble Earl has raised many questions. I can assure him that I have virtually all the answers, but I am very conscious that the House may not like me as much as it said it did earlier if I were to give all those answers. I ask the noble Earl whether I can take advantage of his kind offer to write to him on all those issues. I shall then be able to give a more comprehensive response. He has raised a number of very important issues. I have explained the current position in relation to children and I hope we will develop the new position soon. We wish to legislate in relation to the provisions that are contained in the White Paper at the earliest opportunity. I hope that will give him a little pleasure while he awaits my full, comprehensive answer.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General for her encouraging response. I look forward to hearing from her. I thank my noble friends for their contributions in support of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B:
	Clause 35, page 24, line 11, leave out 5(3)(c) and insert 5(1) or (3)(c)
	Clause 35, page 24, line 20, leave out 5(1) or
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Power to make consequential and transitional provision etc]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Clause 37, page 25, line 10, after Session insert after that

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a technical amendment proposed by parliamentary counsel to assist in the making of consequential amendments in due course. Clause 37 includes the power to amend, repeal or revoke any enactment that is passed or made before the end of the Session in which this Act is made. The amendment extends that power to the end of the Session after the Act is made; for example, the Session ending in 2008. We have informed the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which did not feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to the amendment. I assure noble Lords that it is entirely technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Schedule 3, page 36, line 40, at end insert
	Part 1a Amendments relating to Part 2 Prison Act 1952 (c. 52)
	In section 19 of the Prison Act 1952 (right of justices to visit prison), in subsection (3) for visiting committee or the board of visitors there is substituted independent monitoring board.
	Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
	In Part 2 of Schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976 (public bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty), there is inserted, in the appropriate place under the heading Other Bodies Etc., the following entry
	An Independent Monitoring Board appointed under section 6(2) of the Prison Act 1952.Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
	In section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right to time off for public duties)
	(a) in subsection (2)(d), for a board of prison visitors there is substituted an independent monitoring board for a prison; and(b) in subsection (7)(a), for the words from the beginning to of visitors there is substituted independent monitoring board means a board.Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)
	In section 99 of the (conversion of sentence of detention or custody to sentence of imprisonment), in subsection (1)(b) for board of visitors there is substituted independent monitoring board.
	Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
	In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities: other public bodies and offices) there is inserted, in the appropriate place, the following entry
	Any Independent Monitoring Board established under section 6(2) of the Prison Act 1952..
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
	Schedule 5, page 42, line 27, column 2, at beginning insert
	
		
			  In section 6(2), the words from of whom to the end. 
		
	
	Schedule 5, page 42, line 33, at end insert
	
		
			 Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) In Part 2 of Schedule 1A, the entry relating to a board of visitors for a prison. 
		
	
	Schedule 5, page 42, line 38, at end insert
	
		
			 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) In Part 6 of Schedule 1, the entry relating to a board of visitors for a prison. 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Commencement]:

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Clause 40, page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert
	(1) Section (Probation report) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
	(1A) Apart from section (Probation report), Part 1 of this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, but no such order may be made until the end of a period of 60 days commencing with the laying of a report under section (Probation report).
	(1B) Parts 2 to 4 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [HL]

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.

Statistics and Registration Service Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with another amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement and with an amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof and with the remaining amendments agreed to without amendment. It was ordered that the amendments and reasons be printed.
	House adjourned at 10 pm.